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

Re: Status of issue #30 (Implied LWS)

From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:15:31 +0000
Message-ID: <491CDF43.90502@isode.com>
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 GMT

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