Re: Headers / caches proposal (revised)

Hi Mark.

Mark Baker:
> I had the same concern, and we discussed it[1] at the f2f and agreed
> on the same syntactical limitations you described.  Unfortunately, it
> doesn't look like anybody took an action to fix the text.  Want to
> propose something?
> 
> We didn't discuss the other considerations you mentioned, nor do I
> personally think we need to, but again, feel free to propose
> something.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/05/01-webapi-minutes.html#item09 (member access)

I never got around to proposing some text.  How about the following:

  Nothing MUST be done if the header or value arguments contain an
  invalid character, or if the header argument contains no characters.
  For the header argument, valid characters are those in the following
  set, which corresponds to the characters that can be matched by the
  'token' production defined in RFC2616:

    U+0021 EXCLAMATION MARK
    U+0023 NUMBER SIGN .. U+0027 APOSTROPHE
    U+002A ASTERISK
    U+002C COMMA .. U+002E FULL STOP
    U+0030 DIGIT ZERO .. U+0039 DIGIT NINE
    U+0041 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A .. U+005A LATIN CAPITAL LETTER Z
    U+005E CIRCUMFLEX ACCENT .. U+007A LATIN SMALL LETTER Z
    U+007C VERTICAL LINE
    U+007E TILDE

  For the value argument, valid characters are those in the following
  set, which correponds to the characters that can be matched by the
  'field-content' production defined in RFC2616:

    U+0009 CHARACTER TABULATION
    U+0020 SPACE .. U+007E TILDE

  Note that while the 'field-content' production defined in RFC2616
  requires header values to match a more restrictive grammar than just
  the above set of valid characters, this requirement is not imposed
  upon the value argument.

-- 
 Cameron McCormack			ICQ: 26955922
 cam (at) mcc.id.au			MSN: cam (at) mcc.id.au
 http://mcc.id.au/			JBR: heycam (at) jabber.org

Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2006 01:49:02 UTC