- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:20:58 +0100
- To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> continuing work on the BNF...: >> >> There are two name collisions in the RFC2616 BNF that we need to get >> rid of: >> >> - "trailer" (as occurring in chunked encoding) vs "Trailer" (the >> header name) >> >> - "host" (as imported from RFC2396) > > On a related note: should this be imported from RFC 3986 instead? Of course; this applies to all URI-related productions. I just try to fix one thing at a time :-) >> vs "Host" (the header name) >> >> I currently have a slight preference for not changing the rule names >> for headers (and to keep them consistent), which would require >> renaming "trailer" and "host" to something else. >> >> Alternatively we could rename the rule names for the headers by adding >> a common prefix or postfix. > > IMHO, that would be slightly better if you want to reference RFC 2396 or > RFC 3986. It would also prevent any future conflicts. > > But you can also do something like the following for the <host>: > > uri-host = <host as defined in RFC 3986> Funny enough right now by edits say: host-component = <host, defined in [RFC2396], Section 3.2.2> > ... BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 18:21:20 UTC