I was considering to just move it up by one level. Validation may or may not be an issue but I figured some libraries won't have a getExtension or getChildren method on the error class if they don't expect the class to have children. Are there any other examples of XEPs 'extending' the error element?
2017-12-04 9:29 GMT+01:00 Florian Schmaus <[email protected]>: > On 04.12.2017 07:34, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: >> Sun, 03 Dec 2017 19:01:58 -0000 >> Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor) <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Version 0.4.0 of XEP-0363 (HTTP File Upload) has been released. >> >> The new element <retry/> is added within *existing* namespace. > > Which is sensible, given that its backwards compatible. > >> Also, I remind, that RFC6120 Section 11.4 says: >> >>> An implementation MAY choose to accept or send only data that has been >>> explicitly validated against the schemas provided in this document, >>> but such behavior is OPTIONA> >> So, this rule doesn't apply to XEPs schemas? > > I think so, given that it explicit says "schemas provided in this document". > >> In the case it does, what >> schema version should a server use to validate the content? In the case >> it doesn't, what a server should do with unknown element within >> *known* namespace (sic): dropping element? > >> remain it untouched? > > This ^ > > That is what we always did when extending XMPP in a backwards compatible > way. I'm not aware of a case where we did something different. And given > that we want to avoid namespace bumps whenever possible, I'm happy with > that. Even if it means that live schema validation is not feasible. > >> The >> latter case is meaningless, because the idea of server-side validation >> is to prevent sending garbage to clients. > > Serous question: I wonder where do you see the benefit in schema > validation? You (always) need a parser which ensures that protocol > requirements like "this attribute must exist", or "this attribute must > be a uint32_t" are fulfilled. And you want to enforce a maximum > top-level stream element size early in the processing chain. But if you > have that, what is the gain in validating against a schema? > > - Florian > > > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
