Folks: Notice the change made back at Yadis Specification draft 0.7

Joaquin Miller joaquin at
Wed Apr 5 02:22:11 UTC 2006

>This is either a bug in the spec or in the implementations.  Only 
>one of X-YADIS-Location and X-XRDS-Location should be used, both 
>should not be included as part of the spec.  I believe the spec 
>should refer to X-YADIS-Location and that is the one that should be used.

I apologize if my message was not clear.  The spec is quite clear and 
does not give any options.  The relevant text is at 6.2.6.

This is unchanged since Version 0.91.

Saying it is courteous to look for X-YADIS-Location (or 
X-Yadis-Location), i had in mind both Postel's law and a relaxed 
attitude while implementations may be still in progress.  There are 
certainly good argument for being strict in what you accept.  So i'll 
back off a bit if others want to consider implementations that use 
X-YADIS-Location to have a bug.  I back of to this: I only meant it 
is courteous to work for a while at least with an implementation that 
has a bug.

Cordially, Joaquin

>Here is a message from one of your fellow implementors.  They were 
>having successful tests (that is: things weren't working).
>Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 09:28:25 -0700
>To: "Johannes Ernst" <jernst at>
>Cc: ... Joaquin Miller <joaquin at>
>Quick update. The spec says to have a header with X-XRDS-Location 
>but all of the implementations look for X-YADIS-Location.
>Once we made the change all is working.
>So remember, folks:  It is courteous to look for X-YADIS-Location, 
>but, as we like to write using all caps:
>        Implementations MUST look for X-XRDS-Location.
>Cordially, Joaquin
>(p.s. The Caps Cops remind us: You can even look for 
>X-Yadis-Location, if you want.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the yadis mailing list