- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 08:26:48 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
If I understand correctly, that's not the only place where RFC2616's
LWS rules get us into trouble.
TimeOut = "Timeout" ":" 1#TimeType
TimeType = ("Second-" DAVTimeOutVal | "Infinite")
DAVTimeOutVal = 1*digit
Applying the 2616 word-based grammer to those rules, we could have
Timeout headers like
Timeout: Second- 1111
Timeout: Second-1 1 1 1
Is my understanding of 2616 BNF grammar correct? I'm not sure if
1*DIGIT is one token or several, so it's not entirely clear to me if
the second example is allowed. Certainly the intent of 2616 is not to
allow that because values like Content-Length are defined as 1*DIGIT.
Lisa
On Dec 4, 2005, at 1:09 AM, bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu wrote:
> http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201
>
> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> AssignedTo|julian.reschke@greenbytes.de|lisa@osafoundation.org
>
>
>
> ------- Additional Comments From julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
> 2005-12-04 01:09 -------
> Explanation:
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.2.1.p.11>
>
> Suggested change: state that LWS is not allowed here, just like in the
> grammar for "opaquelocktoken".
>
>
>
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
Received on Sunday, 4 December 2005 16:27:01 UTC