• To: Michael Champion <mc@x...>
• Subject: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:34:34 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: "'xml-dev@l... '" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <6D717071-462E-11D8-8ADE-000A95CCC59E@x...>

The thing "they" all seem to miss about the Postel quote, was that it was
written as part of a specification, and referred to that spec.  When
there's "wiggle room" in the spec, be liberal in what you accept, and
conservative in what you implement.  Where there's no ambiguity (over
there, in the box), the rule doesn't apply.
	/r$

--
Rich Salz                  Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology       http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway  http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview      http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>

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