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

Marcel Waldvogel marcel.waldvogel at uni-konstanz.de
Tue Dec 5 10:19:19 UTC 2017


This depends whether it is more costly for the protocol to break
unmaintained software or not. I.e., whether you can afford to have
compliant software breaking or whether you can afford uncompliant
software breaking. The Internet is way more established than XMPP. If
an app breaks, it is "that **** app", not "Ah, XMPP, that **** thing
that never works".
I find the differentiation that Dave explains (based on semantics, not
syntax) the right way. Is this official/codified or just his opinion?
-Marcel
On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 12:27 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 04.12.2017 11:37, Marcel Waldvogel wrote:
> > I think this conversation boils down to whether XML validation or
> > the
> > Internet robustness principle
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle> ("Be
> > conservative
> > in what you send, be liberal in what you accept"?) have higher
> > precedence. Has this been discussed (and maybe decided upon)
> > before?
> 
> Postel's Robustness Principle comes up once in a while. As far as I
> can
> tell it is often misunderstood [1] and the way it is (mis)understood
> is
> considered harmful [2]. I also think that any interpretation of it
> does
> not apply here.
> 
> I believe that it is better to fail hard and fast [3], instead of
> being
> "liberal in what to accept".
> 
> Hence validation is usually always a good idea. But here we have to
> decide if every tiny change requires a new schema and namespace bump
> so
> that one can do server side schema verification. For me, the case is
> clear: The benefits of the server side verification do not justify
> additional namespace bumps.
> 
> - Florian
> 
> 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9829253
> 2: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thomson-postel-was-wrong/
> 3: Which, BTW, is Smack's default, but it can be changed so that
> invalidated stanzas are simply ignored.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20171205/c0031e17/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 6431 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20171205/c0031e17/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list