Or we could just recognize that for the general population, "cookies" are any client storage by a website, and for technical people, cookies are a subset of options for client storage by a website.
The public never needs to know the technical distinction because it is both
1) Arbitrary: "cookie" could just as well have been a general term for client storage, and
2) Insignificant: Virtually nothing the public is concerned about hinges on specifically how client data is stored, except for lawyers trying to get around cookie laws or to deceive through the text and UI of cookie consent pop-ups.
> We shouldn't make the problem worse by giving them false information.
So what I'm saying is that it's not a problem. It's very easy and accurate enough to tell users that they have to allow cookies in order to use some webpages offline. They can make all of the informed political decisions and personal decisions they need to make. I'd be happy to even further complicate the situation by referring to localstorage as the type of cookie that you'd need to make a lot of pages work offline.
edit: I mean, you can save your cookie in localstorage. For me, that makes it a superset, and the name "local storage" makes it clear that it's storing things where you are. If the public weren't calling all client storage cookies, I'd recommend that they start calling all client storage localstorage.
> Insignificant: Virtually nothing the public is concerned about hinges on specifically how client data is stored, except for lawyers trying to get around cookie laws or to deceive through the text and UI of cookie consent pop-ups.
IMO, your exception is what makes the distinction significant. Defining a cookie two different ways gives companies a powerful new tool for purposefully misleading and manipulating end users.
Yes, many users are already confused. But if we actually make it acceptable to define cookies more broadly (but only when it's convenient for those in power), we're going to make the situation much worse.
Right, if anything, we should campaign for the technical definition of "Cookies" to encompass everything as well and just call the old thing legacy HTTP cookies or whatever when you need to be specific.
As a non-web developer, I remember years ago when disabling cookies meant only cookies -- then learning that there were other forms of persistent storage. It made me angry and I felt betrayed.
Calling all persistent storage "cookies" matches the popular understanding of what "cookie" means. I don't see the problem with accepting that and using the term accordingly.
It may not be technically correct, but this is a point where the technical distinction isn't important. If a user disables cookies, what the user is expecting is that persistent storage won't happen at all.
Renaming it to disabling "persistent storage" would be fine, too, except that it would be necessary to explain what "persistent storage" means.
I disagree, but not in the technical sense. People have been talking about cookies since they were invented, so most people who’ve used a web browser know the word and have a vague sense that they’re used to store information on their computer, and are often used for tracking.
The fact is that “cookies” now has a colloquial meaning that’s different from the technical definition, and both meanings are valid.
Most people don't know what "cookies" means either. We shouldn't make the problem worse by giving them false information.