W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2003

implied LWS scope

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:22:08 -0700 (MST)
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0302211007040.98629@measurement-factory.com>

I am trying to understand the intended scope of the "implied *LWS"
rule in RFC 2616.

   implied *LWS
      The grammar described by this specification is word-based. Except
      where noted otherwise, linear white space (LWS) can be included
      between any two adjacent words (token or quoted-string), and
      between adjacent words and separators, without changing the
      interpretation of a field.

It is not clear to me whether the above wording implies that word is
token or quoted-string and not literal. Here are two specific examples
to illustrate the confusion.

   message-header = field-name ":" [ field-value ]
   field-name     = token
   Authorization  = "Authorization" ":" credentials

Can one use implied LWS rule to write:

	Authorization    : scheme param=value

and expect compliant agents to honor the Authorization header?
Is the Authorization field name a token or a literal?


	Request-Line   = Method SP Request-URI SP HTTP-Version CRLF
	HTTP-Version   = "HTTP" "/" 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT

Can one use implied LWS rule to write:

	GET / HTTP /     1   .   0

and expect compliant agents to parse the version part correctly?



                            | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
                            | all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 12:22:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:36 UTC