[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0363 (HTTP File Upload)

Daniel Gultsch daniel at gultsch.de
Mon Dec 4 08:53:59 UTC 2017


I was considering to just move it up by one level. Validation may or
may not be an issue but I figured some libraries won't have a
getExtension or getChildren method on the error class if they don't
expect the class to have children.
Are there any other examples of XEPs 'extending' the error element?

2017-12-04 9:29 GMT+01:00 Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu>:
> On 04.12.2017 07:34, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
>> Sun, 03 Dec 2017 19:01:58 -0000
>> Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor) <jonas at wielicki.name> wrote:
>>
>>> Version 0.4.0 of XEP-0363 (HTTP File Upload) has been released.
>>
>> The new element <retry/> is added within *existing* namespace.
>
> Which is sensible, given that its backwards compatible.
>
>> Also, I remind, that RFC6120 Section 11.4 says:
>>
>>> An implementation MAY choose to accept or send only data that has been
>>> explicitly validated against the schemas provided in this document,
>>> but such behavior is OPTIONA>
>> So, this rule doesn't apply to XEPs schemas?
>
> I think so, given that it explicit says "schemas provided in this document".
>
>> In the case it does, what
>> schema version should a server use to validate the content? In the case
>> it doesn't, what a server should do with unknown element within
>> *known* namespace (sic): dropping element?
>
>> remain it untouched?
>
> This ^
>
> That is what we always did when extending XMPP in a backwards compatible
> way. I'm not aware of a case where we did something different. And given
> that we want to avoid namespace bumps whenever possible, I'm happy with
> that. Even if it means that live schema validation is not feasible.
>
>> The
>> latter case is meaningless, because the idea of server-side validation
>> is to prevent sending garbage to clients.
>
> Serous question: I wonder where do you see the benefit in schema
> validation? You (always) need a parser which ensures that protocol
> requirements like "this attribute must exist", or "this attribute must
> be a uint32_t" are fulfilled. And you want to enforce a maximum
> top-level stream element size early in the processing chain. But if you
> have that, what is the gain in validating against a schema?
>
> - Florian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________
>


More information about the Standards mailing list