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: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:22:12 +0100
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
Message-ID: <op.u7nw3a0d64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:17:03 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:59:43 +0100, Julian Reschke  
>> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>  Why exactly?
>
> So that you don't need to come up with a new parser for each of them?
>
> (Am I missing something here?)

Well, I don't really see the drawback in allowing more bytes by default.  
It seems that you always need a specific parser at some point except for  
headers that take fixed token values, but for those being more lenient is  
not an issue. Therefore I was wondering whether a concept of generic  
parser is even used/needed in implementations today. Or maybe they have  
such a concept, but it already is far more lenient so it can also cope  
with e.g. Link and Cookie-related headers. And maybe Authorization? And  
custom set headers through setRequestHeader() per chance? Should  
setRequestHeader() impose less strict requirements than it does now?


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 5 February 2010 16:22:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:16 GMT