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

Re: I-D Action:draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-00.txt

From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:22:50 +0200
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <g84rvn$duk$1@ger.gmane.org>
Cc: ietf-822@imc.org

> Filename        : draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-00.txt

Good.  What's the plan wrt ABNF ?  This memo is harmless
enough that it could offer both, a normative STD 68 ABNF,
and an informative appendix using an appropriate mix of
the 2231 + 2616 BNF.

As it happens the draft already contains an "appropriate
mix", because it doesn't need the advanced feature of the

The general idea of "HTTP does not need continuations"
could boil down to *WSP for all implicit LWS in the BNF.

Or in other words replace any "=" by EQU, and specify

| EQU = *WSP "=" *WSP

Even if we end up with something slightly more obscure,
e.g., EQU = [FWS] "=" [FWS], the BNF hides one subtle
point in <ext-parameter>:

| ext-parameter = attribute "*=" ext-value

I _think_ that "*=" actually means "*" EQU in RFC 2231,
i.e. there can be LWS between "*" and "=".

It can as well mean LWS "*" EQU, i.e. there can be LWS
before "*", between "*" and "=", or after "=".

I think it does _not_ mean LWS "*=" LWS remotely in the
direction of an *= operator.

Received on Friday, 15 August 2008 22:50:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 1 October 2015 05:36:30 UTC