- From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:15:31 +0000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > 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? This seems very sensible. > 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 >
Received on Friday, 14 November 2008 02:16:32 UTC