W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Implicit *LWS

From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 19:08:59 +0100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <83D647DB-6CE6-4B4C-8DF4-8A206F0AA30D@googlemail.com>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>


On 7 Apr 2008, at 16:41, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> mån 2008-04-07 klockan 13:47 +0100 skrev Geoffrey Sneddon:
>
>> Over the past few days I've been looking over RFC2616, and I've found
>> implicit *LWS to be very troublesome. Is this planned to be got rid  
>> of
>> when moving to ABNF?
>
> Yes, it's one of the changes on the ABNF table..

That's what I was hoping. :)

>> - It is defined as being between words and words, or words and
>> separators, but it never defines what a word or a separator is. Is
>> token a word? Is "foo" a word? Is "/" a separator?
>
> The same paragraph defines word as "token or quoted-string", kind of..

That's not clear whether that is a formal definition or an informative  
example of what counts as words. In the real world, it seems to be  
more than that. It appears whitespace is allowed within HTTP-Version,  
for example.

> separators is defined, but does not really match actual use..

So it is just meant to be the separators rule? Ah.

>> - There are all kinds of places where I think it is allowed (pending
>> the above) where it really shouldn't be. As far as I can see, CRLF =
>> CR *LWS LF (where the *LWS is implicit).
>
> How? Neither CR or LF is a word/token/quoted-string...

Well, that is only worthwhile discussing once we know what a word is,  
and under what you're pointing at, it isn't.


--
Geoffrey Sneddon
<http://gsnedders.com/>
Received on Monday, 7 April 2008 18:09:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:46 GMT