[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0363 (HTTP File Upload)
jonas at wielicki.name
Tue Dec 5 09:31:36 UTC 2017
On Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2017 08:30:38 CET Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 4 Dec 2017, at 09:33, Evgeny Khramtsov <xramtsov at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> > I have this validator in ejabberd, yes. And if it's enabled, the stanza
> > with <retry/> element will be rejected. And I consider this as a correct
> > behaviour.
> I think that’s ok, isn’t it?
> I think the two options (as-is, or new namespace) are equivalent from your
> validator’s point of view: 1) As-is: previous version payloads are allowed
> through, new versions won’t be allowed through until the validator is
> updated 2) New namespace: previous version payloads are allowed through,
> new versions won’t be allowed through until the validator is updated
> So I don’t think that on it’s own is necessarily a reason to bump the
> namespace, is it?
I don’t think that’s ok. ejabberd would violate the expectation of the user
that either a type="result" or type="error" is returned, if they simply filter
out the "erroneous" stanza.
Also, I still don’t believe that intermediate servers should validate content
which doesn’t concern them.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the Standards