- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2022 10:52:20 +0100
- To: Norm Tovey-Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@w3.org>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
It's a long-standing problem in the test suite that there's no reliable, repeatable way of testing the failure you get when you request an HTTP resource that doesn't exist, unless you control the whole internet or a simulation thereof. Many ISPs respond to this kind of request with an HTML page that contains some patronising message about checking your spelling. But for this test, I would have thought changing the test to request the "https" version would avoid the immediate problem? Michael Kay Saxonica > On 8 Sep 2022, at 09:17, Norm Tovey-Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > On a related note, I see this has popped up: > > …investigating two failing test cases in eXistdb. > It turns out they are failing because http://www.w3.org/fots/unparsed-text/does-not-exist.txt > Now responds with a permanent redirect to > https://www.w3.org/fots/unparsed-text/does-not-exist.txt > instead of a 404 > > Is it practical to make an exception for > > http://www.w3.org/fots/unparsed-text/does-not-exist.txt > > so that it just returns 404? > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Tovey-Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> > https://nwalsh.com/ > >> Taste ripens at the expense of happiness.--Jules Renard
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2022 09:52:37 UTC