Re: HTTP header field syntax [WAS: Re: Prefer Draft Feedback]

HTTPWorld at large beyond my comprehension,

Just a quick note this makes me think of - there was no hit for 'abnf' in
RFC2616; had to be 'Augmented BNF' for search and that has duffed engineer
attempts to find associated BNF materials when looking for a reference to
ABNF.

To make sure the search works in httpbis the tables of contents should say
both in the proper acronym introduction fashion like for example

       1.2.1.  ABNF Extension: #rule  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8


Would be

       1.2.1.  Augmented BNF (ABNF) Extension: #rule  . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .  8



Regards

Dale Anderson

2011/12/6 Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>

> On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:46:47 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>>
>> We're trying to find some structure in HTTP header field syntax, see
>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/**wg/httpbis/trac/wiki/**HeaderFieldTypes<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/wiki/HeaderFieldTypes>>
>> for
>> the work-in-progress.
>>
>>
> That list of ABNF is missing the pattern that could be called
> "quoted-blob" or such. Things which appear superficially to have the syntax
> of quoted-string but exclude the quoted-pair (or failed to spec escaping
> entirely, with the same end result). ie the string portion may contain bare
> \ characters which will break attempts to use a quoted-string parser on it.
>
> Examples for this can be found in the new ETag ABNF from HTTPbis and the
> path= parameter of Digest authentication. Possibly elsewhere I have not run
> into yet.
>
>
> AYJ
>
>