[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 12:53 PM -0500 1/8/04, Rich Salz wrote:
>Given the recent messages and links about digest, I think we have to
>admit that it's a non-interoperable mechanism that's only slightly
>better than basic-auth and it's client-side management facilities
>and end-user knowledge is worse than cookies.
I certainly don't agree that client side management is worse than
cookies. In the browser's I use the mechanisms for managing user
names and passwords on the client side, while certainly not something
I'd like my mother to rely on and in definite need of improvement,
are clearly better than those for managing cookies.
I'm not sure what you mean by "end-user knowledge" in this context.
If it's ease of use, then again I think the password storage
mechanisms are better than the cookie mechanisms. But maybe you meant
something else?
It may well be that digest authentication is uninteroperable on the
web as it exists today. However, that hasn't been shown to be the
case yet. The references I've seen so far are several years old. It's
entirely possible the problems have been fixed by now, or can be
fixed on the server side. Does anyone have current information about
the state of digest authentication?
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elharo@metalab.unc.edu
Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA
|
