W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: request for feedback: RFC2616 BNF name collisions

From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:06:21 +0000
Message-ID: <4744739D.6030709@isode.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:

> Hi,
>
> continuing work on the BNF...:
>
> There are two name collisions in the RFC2616 BNF that we need to get 
> rid of:
>
> - "trailer" (as occurring in chunked encoding) vs "Trailer" (the 
> header name)
>
> - "host" (as imported from RFC2396)

On a related note: should this be imported from RFC 3986 instead?

> vs "Host" (the header name)
>
> I currently have a slight preference for not changing the rule names 
> for headers (and to keep them consistent), which would require 
> renaming "trailer" and "host" to something else.
>
> Alternatively we could rename the rule names for the headers by adding 
> a common prefix or postfix.

IMHO, that would be slightly better if you want to reference RFC 2396 or 
RFC 3986. It would also prevent any future conflicts.

But you can also do something like the following for the <host>:

 uri-host = <host as defined in RFC 3986>

> Feedback appreciated (in particular suggestion for an alternate rule 
> name for "host" as defined in RFC2396/3986).
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 18:07:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:23 GMT