I would be doing exactly the same as the google croud are.  If the
connection breaks the spec - drop it fast.  Alternatively you can also
complain to the source user (but that does mean you have to parse the
xml you don't know anything about).  Getting a bunch of users
complaining to the non-compliant software buglist just gets things
fixed much faster.

On 1/17/06, Chris Mullins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Norman Rasmussen Wrote:
> > Google are validating the incoming stanzas more than anyone
> > else has before.  jabberd2 currently sends stanzas in the
> > jabber:client namespace.
>
> I would be... surprised if they're validating XMPP more thoroughly than the 
> commercial server that I am familure with (Soapbox).
>
> In fact, a big problem we had with XMPP validation is that so many clients 
> and servers are noncompliant. Upon releasing our server, we actually had to 
> turn off most validation by default because of the huge number of 
> non-compliant clients and servers. At one point we naively asked people to 
> fix all the broken code, but that didn't get very far, so 
> "StrictValidation=False" became the default in our configuation files...
>
> If only there was a way to make all these lazy open-source developers 
> actually update and maintain their code, everything would be so much easier. 
> heheh. :)
>
> As an aside, this is one of the areas I really wish was better about XMPP. I 
> understand the reasons we can't use XSD to validate our stanzas, but it 
> always stuck me as wrong to have an XML protocol designed in such a way that 
> the tools and languages designed specifically to enfore compliance cannot be 
> used. This is one area where the SOAP and WS- crowd is clearly ahead.
>
> --
>
> Chris Mullins
>
>
>


--
- Norman Rasmussen
 - Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 - Home page: http://norman.rasmussen.co.za/

Reply via email to