• To: "'Miles Sabin'" <miles@m...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Postel's "Law": A question for liberal parsers
• From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>
• Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:01:16 -0500
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <200401152018.02233.miles@m...>
• Reply-to: <bob@w...>

Miles Sabin wrote:
> the consensus seemed to be that there could be no 
> hard and fast answer, [for intermediaries]
	This would seem to imply that intermediaries such as proxies
and routers exist in a "Twilight Zone" in which the application of
Postel's Law is uncertain... So, there is no one law to rule them all?
	PubSub systems, like what we're building at pubsub.com, are
often compared to routers. The difference is that most common routers
are "address-based routers" while what we do is "content-based
routing." We route based on the content of a message, not the address
to which it is sent. 
	However, I must say that I'm pretty uncomfortable about the
prospect of letting any one of hundreds of thousands of random
bloggers make my feeds fall out of conformance simply because they
produced garbage items in their RSS files... I'm still not sure what
is the right thing to do.

		bob wyman

• References:
  • Re: Postel's "Law": A question for liberal parsers
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Safari and rendering XML with XSL
• Next by Date: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Previous by thread: Re: Postel's "Law": A question for liberal parsers
• Next by thread: Re: Postel's "Law": A question for liberal parsers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread