W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2001

RE: content type for WebDAV request/response bodies, was: [ACL] Access Control Protocol -07 submitted

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:11:02 +0100
To: "Jim Whitehead" <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>, <acl@webdav.org>, "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCEEPCDHAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> From: acl-admin@webdav.org [mailto:acl-admin@webdav.org]On Behalf Of Jim
> Whitehead
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:10 AM
> To: acl@webdav.org; WebDAV
> Subject: RE: content type for WebDAV request/response bodies, was: [ACL]
> Access Control Protocol -07 submitted
>
>
> It seems reasonable to me to add this text. I'd also go further, and
> explicitly note that validating requests and responses is generally a bad
> idea. IETF protocols should be strict in what they send, liberal in what

Well, it's not possible anyway, unless we have a proper definition of what
this means for WebDAV. The DTD as it stands won't do it.

> they accept. Strict checking of a DAV message for validity is
> more stringent
> than is necessary to interpret the meaning of the message. It has been my
> experience that implementations that do require strict validity tend to be
> much less interoperable, since they tend to reject XML that most other
> implementations accept without any problem. This is why the DAV spec. has
> never required anything more than well formedness.

Well, XML does "draconian" error checking on accept, and this is one of the
reasons *why* XML interoperability  is quite good. The main point is to
state the requirements clearly and early.
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2001 03:11:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:59 GMT