- From: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:12:56 -0500
- To: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Scott Lawrence wrote:
>
> > 4. OUTLINE
>
> I second Roys comment on the beginning of section 4:
>
> > ...and that impact can largely be confined
> > to Common Gateway Interface (CGI) programs, unless the server provides
> > more sophisticated state management support.
>
> That whole statement could just be cut without detracting from the
> spec. CGI is irrelevant - almost all server implementations provide
> other mechanisms for programatic access and the state management
> mechanisms apply to them all equally (whether they are "more
> sophisticated" or not).
Okay, okay. It did make sense once, I think, but I'll remove it.
>
> ================
>
> > 4.1 Syntax: General
>
> > av-pairs = av-pair *(";" av-pair)
> > av-pair = attr ["=" value] ; optional value
> > attr = token
> > value = word
> > word = token | quoted-string
>
> Why not just make the syntax for 'value':
>
> value = token | quoted-string
Good point.
>
> I don't see any use for the 'word' token (and the name 'word' is
> misleading because it isn't a word in the normal english usage).
>
> > NOTE: The syntax above allows whitespace between the attribute and the =
> > sign.
>
> ... and between the "=" and the value?
>
> There should just be a reference to the general rule for implied
> whitespace in HTTP header parsing (section 2.1 in RFC2068).
I do say that "White space is permitted between tokens," which means
much the same thing. The point of the NOTE was to alert users of
Netscape's cookies spec. to this change from that spec.
Dave Kristol
Received on Monday, 17 November 1997 12:16:28 UTC