- 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