[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Postel's law, exceptions

• To: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Subject: RE: Postel's law, exceptions
• From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:43:09 -0500
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D1D51803@R...>
• References: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D1D51803@R...>

At 9:10 PM -0800 1/13/04, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>Some would consider such mailings a denial of service attack, I'd 
>agree with them.

I was half-joking (but only half, how does one type half a smiley 
face?). The main problem I see with this idea is that it would be too 
easy for a popular webmaster to deliberately break their feed while 
pointing the webmaster address at somebody else's inbox to launch a 
DOS attack.

Don Park has a less aggressive suggestion 
<http://www.docuverse.com/blog/donpark/EntryViewPage.aspx?guid=b8d11d41-7b90-489f-8f68-bedb2b05ddd2>:

I believe the spec should be strict and implementations should be 
liberal yet *visibly distinguish* good feeds from bad ones. Badly 
formed feeds should be displayed with 'broken' icons and posts should 
be displayed with a header or footer message clearly indicating that 
the feed data is bad. This should reduce or at least limit 
proliferation of bad feeds.
-- 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   elharo@m...
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml            
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA 

• References:
  • RE: Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Next by Date: Newbie XPath
• Previous by thread: RE: Postel's law, exceptions
• Next by thread: RE: Postel's law, exceptions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread