--- Analysis & Solutions <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's a good guess! Yet further proof that cookies suck, except > the ones made with flour, shortening and sugar, of course.
That's a pretty harsh description of one of Netscape's greatest contributions to the Web (the other being SSL). With a simple extension to HTTP, cookies provide a method for uniquely identifying Web clients. They can persists across browser sessions (or not), can be easily maintained by the user (I can choose which sites remember me, how long my cookies last, etc.), and are integrated directly into the protocol (no unique identifiers in the URL, proxy caches, etc.). You may have had bad experiences with them for one reason or another, but that is no reason to try and blindly describe cookies as "sucking". If they suck, why do sites such as Google, Amazon, TicketMaster, Yahoo!, and eBay use them? Do you think you know something that they all don't? Anytime that I notice the major Web sites doing something I am not, I try to figure out why. If your argument against them has anything to do with users having the option to disable them, then you should try to learn how to work with that choice rather than writing off the entire technology. There are plenty of examples in the archives for working with cookies. Hope that helps. Chris ===== Become a better Web developer with the HTTP Developer's Handbook http://httphandbook.org/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
