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
#-rule.

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.

 Frank
Received on Friday, 15 August 2008 22:50:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:54 GMT