- From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:45:04 +0200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Julian Reschke wrote: > Frank Ellermann wrote back in December: >> I think what you're looking for is: >> Reason-Phrase = *( VCHAR / WSP ) > Fine with me. <joke> Four months later, RFC 5198 hates HTAB </joke> Seriously, maybe *( SP / VCHAR ) is now good enough. > There's an overlap with issue 74 I don't understand section 5 in RFC 3987. Are HTTP implementors forced to grok IRI comparison ? What has this to do with I18N for <Reason-Phrase> ? For a say 404 the body can use any language and charset it likes. The 2822upd idea of <phrase> is more convoluted, it is a sequence of <word>s, each word is an <atom> or a <quoted-string>. Ignoring <obs-phrase>, <obs-qtext>, and <obs-qp> the <atom>s and <quoted-string>s are separated by optional [CFWS]. But the F in CFWS is something we don't want in <Reason-Phrase>. An advantage of the 2822upd <phrase> is that it is covered by RFC 2047, but that is again designed to allow folding, not okay for a HTTP <Status-Line>. Sanity check, we don't want folding there, right ? The *TEXT in RFC 2616 is apparently a simplification of <phrase>, with the twist of allowing Latin-1, or anything else if 2047-encoded. The Latin-1 and MIME mixture in RFC 2616 is strange. VCHAR is ASCII, for that I know what it means, you can even throw in =?...?.?...?= constructs. Frank
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 15:43:47 UTC