W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Prefer Draft Feedback

From: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:08:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbegye5Xq3BZ2HtfhV5vhAKQjViqH=_+OoQFMTDvU0ouMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Moore, Jonathan (CIM)" <Jonathan_Moore@comcast.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Yes, they are invalid. I need to point that out. They are equivalent
to the first but shouldn't ever be done.

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2011-12-12 22:15, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>> On 2011-12-08 18:56, James Snell wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok, a new draft has been published.
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-http-prefer-07.txt
>>
>> ...
>
>
>   A preference token MAY specify a value.  Empty, or zero length values
>   on both the preference token and within parameters are equivalent to
>   no value being specified at all.  The following, then, are
>   equivalent:
>
>     Prefer: foo; bar=""
>     Prefer: foo=; bar
>     Prefer: foo=""; bar=
>
> In the above examples, the second and the third one are invalid (missing
> value after "="). Bad examples, or bug in the ABNF? (I'd prefer the former).
>
> Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 19:08:32 GMT

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