Re: Seiwald Q & A -- "GET for EDIT" cookies

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Bruce Brown: "Re: lock/checkout/reserve/edit"
• Previous message: Jim Whitehead: "Agenda for Technical Working Mtg."

>1. What about Content-Version and Derived-From? (Dan Connolly)  
>
>	Now Roy Fielding says that Content-Version is opaque and could
>	be used exactly for this purpose, 'cause no one would be the wiser
>	if the Content-Version were different for each checkout of the
>	same document.  This is true, but now the names of these fields
>	are losing their meaning, no?  If it's checkout context, call it
>	"Checkout-Context" (or "Checkout-Cookie").

I think the reason that neither Content-Version/Derived-From nor
Cookie/Set-Cookie are the appropriate places for the checkout context
is that checkout is a global state, based upon the user's identity.

Carrying the checkout state in a browser cookie would mean that a
checkout would be tied to my user agent instance, not my identity.
(am I way off base here?  have I missed proposals to the W3C to
pool cookies between user agents?)

Don't get me wrong: Content-Version is still *very* useful -- it's
like bus locking in a computer system: a low-level coherency check
which simplifies life for the higher levels of the system.

-Dave

• Next message: Bruce Brown: "Re: lock/checkout/reserve/edit"
• Previous message: Jim Whitehead: "Agenda for Technical Working Mtg."