This should have gone to the mailing list, but didn't. Seems like a simpler solution. - Jim > From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com> > Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 11:28:03 -0700 > To: "Roy Fielding (E-mail)" <fielding@avron.ics.uci.edu> > Cc: "Jim Gettys (E-mail)" <jg@w3.org> > Subject: FW: FW: question about implied LWS > ----- > Despite the fact that I didn't ask the question I intended to ask (whicy was > whether LWS is allowed between quoted-strings and separators) you answered > the question I intended to ask. > > Looking at my suggestion again, I think a simpler fix is to change the > underlined instance of "tokens" in the paragraph below to "words". > > implied *LWS > The grammar described by this specification is word-based. Except where > noted otherwise, linear white space (LWS) can be included between any two > adjacent words (token or quoted-string), and between adjacent tokens and > ====== > separators, without changing the interpretation of a field. At least one > delimiter (LWS and/or separators) MUST exist between any two tokens (for the > definition of "token" below), since they would otherwise be interpreted as a > single token. > > Jim, can you mark this as an editorial issue? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu] > Sent: Saturday, October 03, 1998 11:11 PM > To: Paul Leach > Subject: Re: FW: question about implied LWS > > >Section 2.2 on "basic rules" says: > > > >implied *LWS > >The grammar described by this specification is word-based. Except where > >noted otherwise, linear white space (LWS) can be included between any two > >adjacent words (token or quoted-string), and between adjacent tokens and > >separators, without changing the interpretation of a field. At least one > >delimiter (LWS and/or separators) MUST exist between any two tokens (for > the > >definition of "token" below), since they would otherwise be interpreted as > a > >single token. > > > >This seems to say that LWS is not allowed between adjacent quoted-strings. > > Adjacent quoted-strings are adjacent words, so it doesn't say that. > > >Was that intended? I assume not, but I could be wrong. > > > >If not, I think it would be clearer to add the following production to the > >basic rules > > word = token | quoted-string | separator > >and then change the section on implied LWS to say > > That adds a rule saying you can put LWS between quoted strings and > separators. > AFAIK that is okay too, since everywhere that actually restricts LWS > should be specific about restricting it. > > >implied *LWS > >The grammar described by this specification is word-based. Except where > >noted otherwise, linear white space (LWS) can be included between any two > >adjacent words (see below for the definition of "word") without changing > the > >interpretation of a field. At least one delimiter (LWS and/or separators) > >MUST exist between any two tokens (for the definition of "token" below), > >since they would otherwise be interpreted as a single token. > > Fine with me. > > ....Roy
attached mail follows:
Despite the fact that I didn't ask the question I intended to ask (whicy was
whether LWS is allowed between quoted-strings and separators) you answered
the question I intended to ask.
Looking at my suggestion again, I think a simpler fix is to change the
underlined instance of "tokens" in the paragraph below to "words".
implied *LWS
The grammar described by this specification is word-based. Except where
noted otherwise, linear white space (LWS) can be included between any two
adjacent words (token or quoted-string), and between adjacent tokens and
======
separators, without changing the interpretation of a field. At least one
delimiter (LWS and/or separators) MUST exist between any two tokens (for the
definition of "token" below), since they would otherwise be interpreted as a
single token.
Jim, can you mark this as an editorial issue?
-----Original Message-----
From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu]
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 1998 11:11 PM
To: Paul Leach
Subject: Re: FW: question about implied LWS
>Section 2.2 on "basic rules" says:
>
>implied *LWS
>The grammar described by this specification is word-based. Except where
>noted otherwise, linear white space (LWS) can be included between any two
>adjacent words (token or quoted-string), and between adjacent tokens and
>separators, without changing the interpretation of a field. At least one
>delimiter (LWS and/or separators) MUST exist between any two tokens (for
the
>definition of "token" below), since they would otherwise be interpreted as
a
>single token.
>
>This seems to say that LWS is not allowed between adjacent quoted-strings.
Adjacent quoted-strings are adjacent words, so it doesn't say that.
>Was that intended? I assume not, but I could be wrong.
>
>If not, I think it would be clearer to add the following production to the
>basic rules
> word = token | quoted-string | separator
>and then change the section on implied LWS to say
That adds a rule saying you can put LWS between quoted strings and
separators.
AFAIK that is okay too, since everywhere that actually restricts LWS
should be specific about restricting it.
>implied *LWS
>The grammar described by this specification is word-based. Except where
>noted otherwise, linear white space (LWS) can be included between any two
>adjacent words (see below for the definition of "word") without changing
the
>interpretation of a field. At least one delimiter (LWS and/or separators)
>MUST exist between any two tokens (for the definition of "token" below),
>since they would otherwise be interpreted as a single token.
Fine with me.
....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 3 November 1998 11:23:54 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:05 UTC