| 6:59 am on Jul 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Don't think there's a problem - I just checked RFC 2109 and there is no mention of a limit to the expire duration.
Personally I would stick with 6 months (a year maybe) and just refresh it each time they return.
| 9:17 am on Jul 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
No, but Netscape has a limit lifetime of cookies option - it can be over-ridden (but then again they can be deleted!)
| 6:33 pm on Jul 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Personally I would stick with 6 months (a year maybe) and just refresh it each time they return. |
I get the same thing everywhere - you can set them for as long as you want, but I wouldn't...
Any practical reason?
| 4:16 am on Jul 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 9:07 am on Jul 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Just for consistency sake. If you want to have a true picture of your audience, cookies work best when they're as close to "eternal" as possible.
Especially for a seasonal" site. Imagine that the site is devoted to superbowl alone - what good will a cookie be there, if its lifetime is less than one year?
| 10:36 am on Jul 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
StanBo, I'm all for it.
Just looking for practical disadvantages before I start setting cookies for 5 years or so.
| 11:45 am on Jul 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
None. I sincerely believe that's the reason this tread has fallen silent - it's hard to come up with an objection to something that natural, convenient, handy, practical whatever... :)
| 12:26 pm on Jul 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm most worried that some browsers might not accept cookies with the expiration date set for too long. I know it's not a standard and should not happen, but I was asking if anybody had any headaches with cookies in practice.