|
Re: Why MD5 Headers are Imperative: msg#00476network.syndication.atom.protocol
I've implemented no less than four APP server implementations and three clients. I've tested my clients against about seven different server implementations, including three implementations from other vendors. I have yet to encounter any problem with the text you are claiming is broken. Working code counts for a lot. - James Eric J. Bowman wrote: > I am astonished at the lack of concern here for the key element of what I'm > saying: > > I have a fully RFC-compliant Atom deployment. It only breaks when I attempt > to implement _your_ spec. With _my_ spec it works beautifully and is still > a fully RFC-compliant Atom deployment, with PUT. > > Doesn't working code count for anything? Not that I can back that up > publicly just yet, but how about some benefit of the doubt? > > -EJB > > > > |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: Why MD5 Headers are Imperative: 00476, Eric J. Bowman |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Why MD5 Headers are Imperative: 00476, Eric J. Bowman |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Why MD5 Headers are Imperativei: 00476, Eric J. Bowman |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Why MD5 Headers are Imperative: 00476, Michael Wechner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |