Everything about the web is a minefield. It's an exercise in "how many unnecessary layers can we put between users and their content"?
What are you implicitly comparing it against?
Handling cookies is a minefield
101–110 of 270 posts
Re: Handling cookies is a minefield
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
JSON is explicitly a string serialization format.
Right, I meant it's not a JavaScript object. It's serialized into a string in any case, no matter which API you're stuffing it into. So it's a bit of a non-sequitur for the parent to suggest that it's somehow weird to store JSON in a cookie, but not in localStorage. It's all just strings.
My point is that there really is no such thing as "truly a JSON object".
Re: Handling cookies is a minefield
#103One of the things I’ve always found frustrating about cookies is that you have to do your own encoding instead of the API doing it for you. I’m sure someone somewhere does but too often I’m doing my own urlencode calls.
Encoding is at least solvable, but every browser having their own cookie length versus some standard value makes that some nonsense. Kong actually has a plugin to split (and, of course, recombine) cookies just to work around this
But it's so solvable that I shouldn't have to solve it
Re: Handling cookies is a minefield
#104Re: Handling cookies is a minefield
#105Did anyone else notice that the HTTP protocol embeds within it ten-thousand different protocols? Browsers and web servers both "add-on" a ton of functionality, which all have specifications and de-facto specifications, and all of it is delivered through the umbrella of basically one generic "HTTP" protocol. You can't have the client specify what version of these ten-thousand non-specifications it is compatible with,…
This is also the fault of shit-tastic middleware boxes which block any protocol they don't understand-- because, hey, it's "more secure" to default-fail, right?-- so every new type of application traffic until the end of time has to be tunneled over HTTP if it wants to work over the real Internet.
Re: Handling cookies is a minefield
#106IT IS a mess, but I never saw json inside a cookie. For json I use local storage or indexeddb.
Are they ubiquitous? I'm no client side guru, I know I could look at makeuseof etc, but why not ask some professionals instead.
At the very least localstorage is supported across the board
Re: Handling cookies is a minefield
#107Cookies are filled with weird gotchas and uncomfortable behavior that works 99.95% of the time. My favorite cookie minefield is cookie shadowing - if you set cookies with the same name but different key properties (domain, path, etc.) you can get multiple near-identical cookies set at once - with no ability for the backend or JS to tell which is which.
Try going to https://example.com/somepath and entering the following into the browser console:
document.cookie = "foo=a";
document.cookie = "foo=b; domain=.example.com";
document.cookie = "foo=c; path=/somepath";
document.cookie
'foo=c; foo=a; foo=b'Re: Handling cookies is a minefield
#108I came across a similar issue when experimenting with the Crystal language. I thought it would be fun to build a simple web scraper to test it out, only to find the default HTTP client fails to parse many cookies set by the response and aborts.
Re: Handling cookies is a minefield
#109That is a bit of a minefield, I agree… The way around this, as a developer, is URL-safe-base64 encode the value. Then you have a bytes primitive & you can use whatever inner representation your heart desires. But the article does also note that you're not 100% in control, either. (Nor should you be, it is a user agent, after all.) I do wish more UAs opted for "obey the standard" over "bytes and an prayer on the wire"…
> URL-safe-base64 And make sure to specify what exactly you mean by that. base64url-encoding is incompatible with base64+urlencoding in ~3% of cases, which is easily missed during development, but will surely happen in production.
Isn't it a lot more than 3%? I don't think I've heard anyone say url-safe-base64 and actually mean urlencode(base64(x))
Re: Handling cookies is a minefield
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
A sibling comment talked about “UwU names”. Not sure exactly if they are referring to “tokio” or something else. But if it’s tokio, they might find this informative: > I enjoyed visiting Tokio (Tokyo) the city and I liked the "io" suffix and how it plays w/ Mio as well. I don't know... naming is hard so I didn't spend too much time thinking about it. https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/d3ld9z/comment/f03lnm... Fro…
Just want to point out that location names are used for codenames because they cannot be trademarked Big tech uses them instead of wasting legal time and money having to clear a new name that's temporary or non-public. Changing the name to Tokio removes this benefit and still leaves it disconnected from its purpose.
The name of the city is 東京 -- anything in Latin characters is a rough transliteration. Tokio was the common spelling in European texts until some time last century, and is still used regularly in continental Europe.
see also, e.g. Tokio Hotel