Re: duplicate cart numbers
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2002
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 45377
interpreted = N
texte = > I'm curious though. Anyone with hard numbers on the percentage of the > browsing public that either can't or won't use cookies for whatever > reason? > A tragic and pathetic situation. A cookie, by itself, and used the way it was designed, is no more harmful than the web page generating it. But because of some initial security bugs, unscrupulous webmasters, and a generally paranoid public, journalists have maligned the cookie so ferociously that many paranoid drones have followed their advice and disabled cookies. They don't have a clue what a cookie is, but they know that they don't want one. We know as programmers that there is nothing that we can store in a cookie that isn't already available to us in other ways, ie http headers, environment variables, etc. When I read these articles, especially lately, as there haven't been any cookie related bugs in browsers for a while AFAIK, it really frustrates me. I'm sure they're making their editors happy, and stories about security and other things that are alarming are sure to increase readership and/or make them seem more credible (ironically), so I can understand why it continues. But it's still frustrating that because of this, we are left with a very useful technology that cannot be used to its fullest potential.My methodology is to check for a cookie with a cart value. If it's there, check to see if that cart has already been processed. If so, use a new cart. If not, use the cookie value. If no cookie at all, use a new cart. Set the cookie only if a product is added to cart.So I tend to default to the cart, unless a cookie is present. I don't bother setting cookies until I know the visitor is serious; when they add a product. Since some browsers don't like overwriting a cookie with a blank value, I can't rely on the cookie not being an already processed cart, thus the check before using it. Used along with an initial check for an already processed cart value coming in (from a bookmark, for instance) and I basically use the cookie as a way to let a customer who's placed something in their cart come back at a later time and still have the item(s) in their cart. I like to err on the side of compatibility when building a site for a client. The last thing I want to hear is we're getting some complaints from users who don't want to use cookies.... No matter what the technobabble you put in their ear sounds like, it won't sit well with the client that they are potentially missing sales. On the other hand, on my own personal sites, I've occasionally been a techno-snob and forced visitors into strict requirements. It certainly makes life easier to do so.Mike ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list
. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
> I'm curious though. Anyone with hard numbers on the percentage of the > browsing public that either can't or won't use cookies for whatever > reason? > A tragic and pathetic situation. A cookie, by itself, and used the way it was designed, is no more harmful than the web page generating it. But because of some initial security bugs, unscrupulous webmasters, and a generally paranoid public, journalists have maligned the cookie so ferociously that many paranoid drones have followed their advice and disabled cookies. They don't have a clue what a cookie is, but they know that they don't want one. We know as programmers that there is nothing that we can store in a cookie that isn't already available to us in other ways, ie http headers, environment variables, etc. When I read these articles, especially lately, as there haven't been any cookie related bugs in browsers for a while AFAIK, it really frustrates me. I'm sure they're making their editors happy, and stories about security and other things that are alarming are sure to increase readership and/or make them seem more credible (ironically), so I can understand why it continues. But it's still frustrating that because of this, we are left with a very useful technology that cannot be used to its fullest potential.My methodology is to check for a cookie with a cart value. If it's there, check to see if that cart has already been processed. If so, use a new cart. If not, use the cookie value. If no cookie at all, use a new cart. Set the cookie only if a product is added to cart.So I tend to default to the cart, unless a cookie is present. I don't bother setting cookies until I know the visitor is serious; when they add a product. Since some browsers don't like overwriting a cookie with a blank value, I can't rely on the cookie not being an already processed cart, thus the check before using it. Used along with an initial check for an already processed cart value coming in (from a bookmark, for instance) and I basically use the cookie as a way to let a customer who's placed something in their cart come back at a later time and still have the item(s) in their cart. I like to err on the side of compatibility when building a site for a client. The last thing I want to hear is we're getting some complaints from users who don't want to use cookies.... No matter what the technobabble you put in their ear sounds like, it won't sit well with the client that they are potentially missing sales. On the other hand, on my own personal sites, I've occasionally been a techno-snob and forced visitors into strict requirements. It certainly makes life easier to do so.Mike ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/
Michael Davis
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Share cost of training videos! (1998)
[WebDNA] Anyone submitted SoAP info in TCPSEND? (2017)
Can you do this??? and other stuff (1997)
Dark Horse Comics success story (1997)
Sku numbers (1997)
Protect vs Authenicate (1997)
[WebDNA] How to create a MD5 hash & decrypt it (2011)
[WebDNA] Emailer file size limits? (2020)
[WebDNA] html email.. should be a no-brainer.. but it is not parsing. (?) (2010)
WebCatalog can't find database (1997)
in header include files? (1998)
[WriteFile] problems (1997)
Processing all html files through WebCat or Typhoon (1998)
[OT] What System Software? (2003)
It just Does't add up!!! (1997)
Serial Number Question (1997)
FW: Username and password in tcp connect/send (2001)
[WebDNA] WebDNA.us Website ?'s (2008)
PSC recommends what date format yr 2000??? (1997)
Multiple fields on 1 input (1997)