dmorison
msg:360576 | 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.
|
gsx
msg:360577 | 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!)
|
bcc1234
msg:360578 | 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. |
|
Why? I get the same thing everywhere - you can set them for as long as you want, but I wouldn't... Any practical reason?
|
bcc1234
msg:360579 | 4:16 am on Jul 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
...bump...
anyone?
|
StanBo
msg:360580 | 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?
|
bcc1234
msg:360581 | 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.
|
StanBo
msg:360582 | 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... :)
|
bcc1234
msg:360583 | 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.
|
|
