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

Re: request for feedback: RFC2616 BNF name collisions

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:20:58 +0100
Message-ID: <4744770A.4020106@gmx.de>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> 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?

Of course; this applies to all URI-related productions. I just try to 
fix one thing at a time :-)

>> 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>

Funny enough right now by edits say:

host-component = <host, defined in [RFC2396], Section 3.2.2>

> ...

BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 18:21:20 GMT

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