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

Re: Status of issue #30 (Implied LWS)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:06:03 -0800
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CF1C3FB9-0B32-41EB-9B29-3A7B11A298BF@mnot.net>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>

Yes; we looked at disallowing it, but implementations that support  
folding do already support whitespace-only lines. We don't want to  
make them non-conforming. Also, it made the ABNF really, really ugly.  
Really.

We're considering discouraging producing all-whitespace continuation  
lines in prose. Thoughts?


On 13/11/2008, at 6:03 PM, Jamie Lokier wrote:

> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> OWS            = *( [ obs-fold ] WSP )    ; "optional" white space
>> RWS            = 1*( [ obs-fold ] WSP )   ; "required" white space
>> BWS            = OWS                      ; "bad" white space
>> obs-fold       = CRLF
>
> That syntax permits header lines containing only whitespace, like  
> this:
>
>    Field:<SP>value<CRLF>
>    <SP><CRLF>
>    <SP>more value<CRLF>
>
> Is this intentional?  (RFC2616 allows it.)
>
> -- Jamie


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 14 November 2008 02:06:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:57 GMT