You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@xalan.apache.org by James Duncan Davidson <Ja...@eng.sun.com> on 2000/05/02 02:36:33 UTC
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Ben Laurie wrote:
> Jason Hunter wrote:
> > If scoped namespaces can be handled efficiently, they'll be included.
> > If handling scoped namespaces is extremely onerous and slow, then they
> > may not be included, at least by default. It wouldn't be unprecedented;
> > I'm strongly suspect the Apache server has a few places where they
> > violate the HTTP spec for the sake of speed. I *know* Tomcat does.
>
> No way. Roy would have our guts for garters if we did that!
>
> My understanding is that Tomcat is not intended to run standalone except
> for testing, so standards compliance is not so important.
Pretty much. It violates the standard primarily because it was put
together in a quicky hack one night and it was fully intended for it to
get ripped out and replaced by something that was HTTP/1.1 compliant. It
didn't happen before it went public, and the rest is an open book.
--
james.davidson@sun.com
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <Ja...@eng.sun.com>.
On Tue, 2 May 2000, Gerard van Enk wrote:
> Any ideas if it's ever gonna be HTTP/1.1 compliant?
I know that some people would like it to be. And of course if you want
to see it happen, talk about it on tomcat-dev. Write code. Ya know, open
source kinda stuff.. :)
--
james.davidson@sun.com
Re: JDOM - moving to jdom-interest@jdom.org
Posted by Gerard van Enk <ge...@eo.nl>.
James Duncan Davidson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > Jason Hunter wrote:
> > > If scoped namespaces can be handled efficiently, they'll be included.
> > > If handling scoped namespaces is extremely onerous and slow, then they
> > > may not be included, at least by default. It wouldn't be unprecedented;
> > > I'm strongly suspect the Apache server has a few places where they
> > > violate the HTTP spec for the sake of speed. I *know* Tomcat does.
> >
> > No way. Roy would have our guts for garters if we did that!
> >
> > My understanding is that Tomcat is not intended to run standalone except
> > for testing, so standards compliance is not so important.
>
> Pretty much. It violates the standard primarily because it was put
> together in a quicky hack one night and it was fully intended for it to
> get ripped out and replaced by something that was HTTP/1.1 compliant. It
> didn't happen before it went public, and the rest is an open book.
Any ideas if it's ever gonna be HTTP/1.1 compliant?
Gerard