> > > Cookies are a bad idea for config. > > As I noted in my previous response, cookies definitely have their use... > Sure. Cookies are good for some things. They are a bad for config.
I'd really like to know why you are so adamantly opposed to cookies... I've repeatedly explained why I think that cookies are appropriate (even necessary) for *some* kinds of TW option settings (e.g., storing sensitive private data, tracking transitory slider/tab states, enabling/disabling browser-specific features, user vs. document preferences, etc.) However, you keep responding with a generic "cookies are bad for config" refrain... but have yet to explain WHY you think that is so. Please elaborate on the *reasoning* behind your position. Otherwise, it's just an hollow statement that lacks persuasive impact and adds very little to the discussion. thanks, -e --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/TiddlyWiki?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
