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: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:01:27 -0800
Cc: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <48DACC01-8AA6-48EB-AEA8-3F1A844E85CB@mnot.net>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>

Yes, all requirements language in the proposal is normative (i.e.,  
uppercase it). Sorry for the confusion.


On 14/11/2008, at 5:34 AM, Jamie Lokier wrote:

>
> Brian Smith wrote:
>> Jamie Lokier wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> All continuation lines are discouraged; maybe that could be worded a
>>> little more strongly.  With the word "discouraged" :-)
>>
>> Mark already said "[S]enders must not produce messages that include  
>> LWS
>> folding[.]" It would be confusing to make LWS folding a MUST NOT  
>> and then
>> make a special case of it "discouraged."
>
> Ok, make sure to capitalise the MUST NOT and I'm happy :-)
>
> -- Jamie
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 15 November 2008 22:02:08 GMT

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