The fields are the same but the description is different,
i.e. the RFC says that the attribute values must be copied, whereas the
Netscape spec. doesn't say anything about the attributes at all (in the
request header)
> Hmmm... my reference says that netscape cookies do pass domain info.
> The browser presumably just doesn't pass it back due to security
> concerns.
I have a trace here that looks like this (from Netscape 4.51)
GET /test/servlet/TestCookies HTTP/1.0
Connection: Keep-Alive
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.51 [en] (WinNT; I)
Pragma: no-cache
Host: kevinj.host.com:4242
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, image/png, */*
Accept-Encoding: gzip
Accept-Language: en
Accept-Charset: iso-8859-1,*,utf-8
Cookie: Hello=World
with this result
HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Content-Type: text/html
Set-Cookie: Hello=World;Domain=.host.com;Expires=Fri, 08-Sep-2000 06:04:08
GMT
Servlet-Engine: Tomcat Web Server/3.2 beta 3 (JSP 1.1; Servlet 2.2; Java
1.3.0; Windows 2000 5.0 x86; java.vendor=Sun Microsystems Inc.)
Kevin Jones
DevelopMentor
www.develop.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A mailing list for discussion about Sun Microsystem's Java Servlet
> API Technology. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Nic
> Ferrier
> Sent: 08 September 2000 05:31
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: domain value of the Cookies in Servlets
>
>
> >>> Kevin Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08-Sep-00 4:47:10 AM >>>
>
> >Doing packet traces for both NS and IE shows that they
> >both only send "Set-Cookie: Name=Value" as the header
> >and no extra values. Setting the version makes no difference
> >in either case!
>
> Hmmm... my reference says that netscape cookies do pass domain info.
> The browser presumably just doesn't pass it back due to security
> concerns.
>
> Netscape cookies certainly pass more than just the value.
>
> They at least send the path.
>
> As far as I recall (when I was implementing this in GNU-Paperclips)
> the problem with netscape cookies is that the order of the modifiers
> is fixed and it's a syntax error to have them in any other order.
> Thus, unless the servlet engine gets this order corect the cookie
> won't be set properly.
>
>
> The new IETF cookies standard has no such problems but, as you say,
> no one seems to be using it.
>
> The only data difference I can see between the two though is the
> "comment" and "version" modifier fields. Also the field names seem to
> be capitalized (but I can't remember if that is a requirement or
> not).
>
>
> Nic
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> _________
> To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include
> in the body
> of the message "signoff SERVLET-INTEREST".
>
> Archives: http://archives.java.sun.com/archives/servlet-interest.html
> Resources: http://java.sun.com/products/servlet/external-resources.html
> LISTSERV Help: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/user/user.html
___________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff SERVLET-INTEREST".
Archives: http://archives.java.sun.com/archives/servlet-interest.html
Resources: http://java.sun.com/products/servlet/external-resources.html
LISTSERV Help: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/user/user.html
