- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:22:08 -0700 (MST)
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
I am trying to understand the intended scope of the "implied *LWS" rule in RFC 2616. 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 words and separators, without changing the interpretation of a field. It is not clear to me whether the above wording implies that word is token or quoted-string and not literal. Here are two specific examples to illustrate the confusion. message-header = field-name ":" [ field-value ] field-name = token Authorization = "Authorization" ":" credentials Can one use implied LWS rule to write: Authorization : scheme param=value and expect compliant agents to honor the Authorization header? Is the Authorization field name a token or a literal? Moreover, Request-Line = Method SP Request-URI SP HTTP-Version CRLF HTTP-Version = "HTTP" "/" 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT Can one use implied LWS rule to write: GET / HTTP / 1 . 0 and expect compliant agents to parse the version part correctly? Thanks, Alex. -- | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite | all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 12:22:08 UTC