[5346] in www-talk@info.cern.ch

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Re: Client Compliance

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martijn Koster)
Thu Aug 25 18:23:24 1994

Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 19:47:27 +0200
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: m.koster@nexor.co.uk
From: Martijn Koster <m.koster@nexor.co.uk>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>


> We need some sort of "Compliance Test". 

Absolutely. But until there is a rigid standard it is difficult to
comply with it. When the standards arrive I'm sure companies will
start quoting compliance, which one can test.

> The Compliance level should be sent from the client along with the
> standard User-Agent field.  "Hi, I'm XYZZYBrowser version 2.2, I can
> handle forms as long as they are not Posted to authenticated areas
> and I use the file extension instead of the mime type for working
> out inline images apart from that I'm compliant with HTTP X.Y and
> HTML Z.X"

That's a complete waste of bytes, IMHO. One can use the User-agent
string to index a list describing compliance; there is no point
sending it with every request. Besides, there is no way to add
to the User-agent once it's fielded, so how usful would it be
when new bugs are found?
 
> You might think that clients would at least get "User-Agent" right, 
> its amazing how many dont...
>
> 	According to the specification 
> 
>  	The first white space delimited  
> 	word must be the software product name
> 
>         <field>   =   User-Agent: <product>+
>         <product> =   <word> [/<version>]
>         <version> =   <word>
> 
> 	FAIL - NCSA Mosaic for the X Window System/2.4 [=white space]
> 	FAIL - MacMosaicB6  libwww2.09 [=version in product name]
> 	FAIL - MacMosaic 2.0.0 a2 [=white space, no /]
> 	FAIL - OmniWeb/OmniWeb 0.7.4.1  libwww/unknown [=white space]
> 	FAIL - MacWeb/libwww/2.13  libwww/unknown [=too many /]
> 	FAIL - WinMosaic/Version 2.0 (ALPHA 3)  [=white space]
> 	FAIL - Lynx/2.3 BETA  libwww/2.14 [=Beta not part of version]
> 	PASS - AIR_Mosaic(16bit)/v3.00.02.02 
> 	PASS - EI*Net/0.1  libwww/0.1
> 	PASS - LII-Cello/0.9

Ah, one of my favourites. Some other bad examples

 Global Wide Help & Information System (GWHIS) ...
 Infomosaic for the X Window System/2.4.1  libwww/2.12 modified
 Lynx/2.3 (secure, BTT)  libwww/2.14
 MacMosax@x@nr2<2<o\o@@\o3Q@@@@w@\@@@@E@@@@E@\xxp@
 Mosaic (TueV) for the X Window System/2.4.2  libwww/2.12 modified
 OmniWeb/$Revision: 1.53 $  libwww/2.14
 PATHWORKS Mosaic/1.0  libwww/2.15_Spyglass
 Proxy gateway CERN-HTTPD/3.0pre3 libwww/2.16pre
 S-Mosaic/Version 1.0b1 (68000)  libwww/2.15_Spyglass
 S-Mosaic/Version 1.0b1 (PowerPC)  libwww/2.15_Spyglass
 WWW Collector
 WWWWanderer v3.0 by Matthew Gray <mkgray@mit.edu>
 unknown/0.0
 Texture for the X Window System/1.1  libwww/2.12 modified  

I also adore the:

 From: <control characters left by MacMosaic 2.0.0 a6 deleted>
 From: Enter in Prefs

but quite dislike the "lying" Referers: Why MacMosaic 2.0.0 a6 only
yesterday reckond <URL:http://w3.eeb.ele.tue.nl/mpeg/movies/r_rated/
index.html> refers to my Mac Archive I don't know :-))

> You could argue that the User-Agent field isn't very important.  But
> so many clients are not fully-compliant with the standards - it's
> useful to be able to tell a user of an interactive service if their
> client will work at all.   How?  The only way is for me to have
> a huge table of clients with reasons for them not being able to 
> handle the service

Sure, what's so bad about that? Make that table available somewhere
prominent so others can use it...

> 1.  I know some of the clients I mention below are in Alpha or Beta
> test.  A large proportion of clients visiting my site are
> labelled as "alphas" and "betas", people will continue to use them
> for some time. 
> 
> 2.  Some of the problems are due to bugs in the clients and 
> I'm not blaming either the protocol writers or the browser
> authors; we need a way of the server knowing!

You want to build knowledge of every protocol bug in a client
into the server? I certainly don't... 

3. We need a way for users to know which client to choose to
depending on independent conformance testing.

-- Martijn
__________
Internet: m.koster@nexor.co.uk
X-400: C=GB; A= ; P=Nexor; O=Nexor; S=koster; I=M
X-500: c=GB@o=NEXOR Ltd@cn=Martijn Koster
WWW: http://web.nexor.co.uk/mak/mak.html

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post