On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:34:58 -0800, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Sending feedback to the HTTP server is a bad idea. First, feed errors > >> are more likely to be caused by bad client software that mishandles > >> its own reads. > > > > Do we have evidence of that in the context of syndication? I suspect > > that the vast majority of errors are above the HTTP level. Most > > clients ignore the XML mime RFC, but assuming they've guessed a > > workable encoding they can tell if the XML is ill-formed or not. > > No, we don't have "evidence" of that in syndication -- we only have > experience that can be drawn upon from 11 years of deploying services > on top of HTTP. Generally speaking, sending an HTTP server an error > message means it will be read either by no one or by the HTTP server > maintainer, not the application maintainer. I know that for a fact > because I wrote one of the first log analyzers (wwwstat) and have > dealt with Apache httpd users since day one, and not once have I ever > encountered an application developer that quoted from the error_log > (even when the documentation specifically says to look there first). Sure, and I very much respect your contributions in the field. But the kind of error reporting being suggested is a move away from server logs, much more under the application maintainer's nose. Your comments here seem to presuppose that error reporting will primarily be concerned with problems at the transport level. I believe current syndication practice would suggest that most problems are going to be within the XML - I'd like to hear Sam's opinion on this (with his feed-validator-author's hat on). But overall I don't think any of the possible problems you highlighted signal any systematic flaw with error reporting of the kind under discussion. It might not work, but then feed quality is a real issue, and IMHO anything that may help should be worth a try. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
