Brendan Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:36:09AM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Maybe I agree with you ("simple clients, complex servers"), but I'd like
>> to hear what other server and client developers think.
>
> XMPP has mostly avoided Postel's Law. Nobody has to deal with ill-formed
> XML because nobody sends ill-formed XML. Nobody sends ill-formed XML
> because nobody accepts it, and what use is a client or server that
> nobody can receive messages from?
>
> I think this is ideal; bad producers never have a chance to enter the
> ecosystem.
I never looked at it that way, but I see what you mean.
> This unfortunate oversight in the original RFC has spoiled that, but we
> can still fix it. Even if it takes years for most server deployments to
> be updated, I'm expecting XMPP to be around for decades (centuries?).
Decades at least.
> The alternative (limiting what parsers non-toy clients can use, maybe even
> requiring them to write their own or use liberal "XML" parsers) is ugly.
> I don't want XMPP to end up like HTML. (though I doubt it would ever get
> *that* bad :))
Please not. :)
> Also keep in mind that in this context "servers" only means the actual
> stanza router; having to handle namespace ill-formed XML beyond rejecting
> it complicates things for component developers too.
This is true.
So how would you tweak the text I proposed?
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
