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

Re: Implied LWS questions

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 20:31:16 +0200
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <g2bvmj$508$1@ger.gmane.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:

> The rule is called "implied *LWS", but then it doesn't 
> state whether it's really "*LWS" or "[ LWS ]".

> And yes, *LWS and [ LWS ] are different; the latter
> only allows one CRLF.

You are right, *LWS is the same as [LWSP] or [FWS], it
is not [LWS].  And it's certainly eating *my* brain. :-(

> right now I'm just trying to understand whether there
> *is* a mechanical way to transform the RFC2616 ABNF so
> that the implied LWS rule can go.

There is a way to translate # constructs, outside of #
I'm not sure.  I guess they didn't replace 822 by 2234
and 2822, because everybody understood 822... <gd&r>   

Received on Friday, 6 June 2008 18:30:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:46 UTC