W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: allowable characters in token as used in parameter ABNF

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:59:43 +0100
Message-ID: <4B6C406F.1090808@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:40:12 +0100, Julian Reschke 
> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> If we do this, we'd really like to do this consistently in both 
>> draft-nottingham-http-link-header and draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http, 
>> and potentially even define it in HTTPbis (maybe just as a recommended 
>> syntax component for new header fields).
> Don't many headers accept more bytes there? E.g. cookie related headers. 

Indeed, Cookies (as specced in RFC 2109) use that pattern as well.

> Making HTTP more flexible makes sense to me. Or maybe study some 
> existing implementations first to see how this is commonly implemented. 

Well, so far we're not discussing any normative change to HTTP/1.1 
itself; but for two new IDs draft use this pattern.

But we may want to add this as advice for new header definitions.

> Do many use a generic parser?

That's a good question.

Even if it's not the case today it would be cool if it could be done at 
least for new stuff.

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 5 February 2010 16:00:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:52 UTC