- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:23:31 +0100
- To: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
- CC: IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
=JeffH wrote: > Thanks for addressing this stuff Julian. > > >> In Section 1.2.2 Basic Rules... > >> > >> > Many HTTP/1.1 header field values consist of words separated by > >> ^^^^^ > >> tokens > > > > I don't think "token" would be correct here. > > Here's my rationale: "word" is used only twice in > draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging with respect to composition and parsing > of (header field) string values (both occurrences being in "1.2.2. > Basic Rules"), yet what constitutes a "word" in this context is not > defined anywhere in the spec, and seems superfluous. Tokens, however, > are clearly defined in this context, and the word "token" is a term of > art in the text parsing discipline (at least it was when I took my > compilers class :) Yes. I don't claim that word == token, otherwise I would already have made that change. RFC2616 said: "The grammar described by this specification is word-based. Except where noted otherwise, linear white space (LWS) can be included between any two adjacent words (token or quoted-string), and between adjacent words and separators, without changing the interpretation of a field." -- <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#basic.rules> So what got lost is the explanation word = token / quoted-string. Apparently we need to resurrect that part. > ... BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2010 16:24:12 UTC