On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Adam Barth wrote:
The document.cookie API is kind of terrible. Web developers shouldn't
have to parse a cookie-string or prepare a properly formated
set-cookie-string. Here's a proposal for an HTML cookie API that isn't
as terrible:
What about something like:
document.pushCookies(function () {
// cookies have been pushed to the js process
var x = document.getCookie(x);
// whatever...
});
This seems similar to Adam's proposed
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Diogo Resende drese...@thinkdigital.ptwrote:
What about something like:
document.pushCookies(function () {
// cookies have been pushed to the js process
var x = document.getCookie(x);
//
No. pushCookies would be a way of pushing cookies to the
current js and
then you could call getCookie several times without defining a
callback.
It would be almost like:
document.observe(cookieload, myAppLoad)
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Diogo Resende drese...@thinkdigital.ptwrote:
No. pushCookies would be a way of pushing cookies to the
current js and
then you could call getCookie several times without defining a
callback.
It would be almost
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Diogo Resende drese...@thinkdigital.pt
wrote:
No. pushCookies would be a way of pushing cookies to the
current js and
then you could call getCookie several
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 11:21 -0800, Darin Fisher wrote:
For reference, reading document.cookie has measurable performance cost
in Chromium since the cookie jar lives in a process separate from the
process running JavaScript. We could have minimized this cost by
caching the cookies locally, but
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Diogo Resende drese...@thinkdigital.ptwrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 11:21 -0800, Darin Fisher wrote:
For reference, reading document.cookie has measurable performance cost
in Chromium since the cookie jar lives in a process separate from the
process running
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:48 PM, James Robinson jam...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
The
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:56:31 +0100, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
The document.cookie API is kind of terrible. Web developers shouldn't
have to parse a cookie-string or prepare a properly formated
set-cookie-string. Here's a proposal for an HTML cookie API that
isn't as terrible:
An explicit deleteCookie method might also be nice.
-Darin
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
The document.cookie API is kind of terrible. Web developers shouldn't
have to parse a cookie-string or prepare a properly formated
set-cookie-string. Here's a
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
The
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:56:31 +0100, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
The document.cookie API is kind of terrible. Web developers shouldn't
have to parse a cookie-string or prepare a properly formated
Done.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
An explicit deleteCookie method might also be nice.
-Darin
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
The document.cookie API is kind of terrible. Web developers shouldn't
have to
To: Darin Fisher
Cc: whatwg
Subject: Re: [whatwg] HTML Cookie API
Done.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
An explicit deleteCookie method might also be nice.
-Darin
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote
: My beliefs do not require them to.
-Original Message-
From: whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org [mailto:
whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Adam Barth
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 8:47 AM
To: Darin Fisher
Cc: whatwg
Subject: Re: [whatwg] HTML Cookie API
Done.
On Wed
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Nicholas Zakas nza...@yahoo-inc.comwrote:
I'm also less-than-thrilled with this being asynchronous, as I think the
use cases for cookies are vastly differently than those for databases
Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Also note that the spec currently has the notion of a storage mutex
which should be taken whenever a script tries to access a cookie (or
local storage) and is held until the script finishes. The network stack
is also supposed to take this lock whenever getting or
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:07 PM, David Flanagan da...@davidflanagan.comwrote:
Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Also note that the spec currently has the notion of a storage mutex which
should be taken whenever a script tries to access a cookie (or local
storage) and is held until the script finishes.
...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy
Orlow
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 12:20 PM
To: David Flanagan
Cc: Peter Kasting; whatwg; Nicholas Zakas; Darin Fisher; Adam Barth
Subject: Re: [whatwg] HTML Cookie API
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:07 PM, David Flanagan
da...@davidflanagan.com wrote
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Nicholas Zakas nza...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
I think there’s always going to be a disconnect between browser developers
and web developers, since we’re both living in very different worlds.
Like I said, I’m all for making cookie access more rational (as if one
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Nicholas Zakas nza...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
I like the idea of creating an easier way to deal with cookies (which is why
I wrote the YUI Cookie utility way back when). The thing that seems to be
missing in your proposed API is what I consider to be the most
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
The document.cookie API is kind of terrible. Web developers shouldn't
have to parse a cookie-string or prepare a properly formated
set-cookie-string. Here's a proposal for an HTML cookie API that
isn't as terrible:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
The document.cookie API is kind of terrible. Web developers shouldn't
have to parse a cookie-string or prepare a properly formated
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
The document.cookie API is kind of terrible. Web developers shouldn't
have
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.comwrote:
Where is the argument for making the API async?
Please see the discussion earlier in this thread.
Can you be more specific? I see:
| I really think the API should be asynchronous, as to avoid the mess
| that
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
wrote:
Instead of array like, I would like to rather have a NamedCookieMap,
what you believe!
Morpheus: My beliefs do not require them to.
-Original Message-
From: Adam Barth [mailto:w...@adambarth.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 1:07 PM
To: Nicholas Zakas
Cc: Darin Fisher; whatwg
Subject: Re: [whatwg] HTML Cookie API
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:11 AM
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Nicholas Zakas nza...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
Even though there can be multiple cookies with the same name on a single
document, this most frequently occurs due to error rather than intention.
I've never received a YUI bug report about this occurrence though I
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Nicholas Zakas nza...@yahoo-inc.com
wrote:
Even though there can be multiple cookies with the same name on a single
document, this most frequently occurs due to error rather than intention.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
Some other random comments:
1- Perhaps deleteCookie should also take an optional error callback.
Done. It's a bit strange, but deleteCookie can fail in third-party contexts.
2- Is it possible for setCookie to be used to
The document.cookie API is kind of terrible. Web developers shouldn't
have to parse a cookie-string or prepare a properly formated
set-cookie-string. Here's a proposal for an HTML cookie API that
isn't as terrible:
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZpchfQ5mBrEZGQ0cDh3YzRfMTRmdHFma21kMghl=en
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
The document.cookie API is kind of terrible. Web developers shouldn't
have to parse a cookie-string or prepare a properly formated
set-cookie-string. Here's a proposal for an HTML cookie API that
isn't as terrible:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
The document.cookie API is kind of terrible. Web developers shouldn't
have to parse a cookie-string or prepare a properly formated
set-cookie-string.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
The document.cookie API is kind of terrible. Web developers shouldn't
have to
35 matches
Mail list logo
