- From: Joris Dobbelsteen <Joris@familiedobbelsteen.nl>
- Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 21:51:19 +0100
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Henrik Nordstrom" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Awareness... I believe we are talking about a technical solution for a problem causes by people not being aware of the havoc caused (or are just plain ignorant, which is best not to assume). Now my doubts are that such technical solutions will resort desired effect. The implementors screw up, the administrators get the effects. I'm considering whether this would get a true result and would people start acting, rather than getting so annoyed to build filters protecting against it. How about feature abuse? Those captcha things are getting more and more common every day. Google and Microsoft protect by using a captcha before site entering, Yahoo requires you to have an account. My believe is that validation tools (single reference) would resort better results, provided that they are used by the development/test/QA teams. In such situations the people that develop the product are actually caring about compliance, instead of just advertising it as such. This leaves to my last thoughts, how well are browsers able to (automatically) detect incorrect behaviour? If a validation tool can do it, so can they. It they can't do it, is a validation tool capable to do so? My reasoning, if they were capable, they would have build mechanisms to protect themselves against broken systems and make the functionality available to others. In fact, is it even possible to detect this problem using automated systems or would it require a human to find out? In such case, browsers would rather be equiped with such features that can be turned on for developers/testers of web applications. Maybe that would be a good middle way. - Joris >-----Original Message----- >From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org >[mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke >Sent: zondag 3 december 2006 11:00 >To: Henrik Nordstrom >Cc: Henry Story; ietf-http-wg@w3.org >Subject: Re: ERR header (NEW ISSUE: Drop Content-Location) > > >Henrik Nordstrom schrieb: >> ... >> I think I have now completely lost the picture on when/why adding an >> ERR method may be useful to the level that it outweights the >negative >> aspects or cost of deployment. >> ... > >The interesting part (to me) is that essentially the >deployment cost for a simple version of ERR is zero: servers >that don't know it are likely to log it; which may be >completely sufficient if the server admin occasionally looks >at the log files. > >Best regards, Julian > >
Received on Sunday, 3 December 2006 20:50:57 UTC