W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1997

Re: draft-ietf-http-state-man-mec-04.txt

From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:48:21 -0500
Message-Id: <199711171748.MAA15335@devnix.agranat.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4695


  I second Roys comment on the beginning of section 4:

> ...and that impact can largely be confined
> to Common Gateway Interface (CGI) programs, unless the server provides
> more sophisticated state management support.

  That whole statement could just be cut without detracting from the
  spec.  CGI is irrelevant - almost all server implementations provide
  other mechanisms for programatic access and the state management
  mechanisms apply to them all equally (whether they are "more
  sophisticated" or not).


> 4.1  Syntax:  General

> av-pairs        =       av-pair *(";" av-pair)
> av-pair         =       attr ["=" value]                ; optional value
> attr            =       token
> value           =       word
> word            =       token | quoted-string

  Why not just make the syntax for 'value':

 value           =       token | quoted-string

  I don't see any use for the 'word' token (and the name 'word' is
  misleading because it isn't a word in the normal english usage).

> NOTE: The syntax above allows whitespace between the attribute and the =
> sign.

  ... and between the "=" and the value?

  There should just be a reference to the general rule for implied
  whitespace in HTTP header parsing (section 2.1 in RFC2068).


Scott Lawrence           EmWeb Embedded Server       <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering            http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Monday, 17 November 1997 10:03:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC