- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 19:08:59 +0100
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 7 Apr 2008, at 16:41, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > mån 2008-04-07 klockan 13:47 +0100 skrev Geoffrey Sneddon: > >> Over the past few days I've been looking over RFC2616, and I've found >> implicit *LWS to be very troublesome. Is this planned to be got rid >> of >> when moving to ABNF? > > Yes, it's one of the changes on the ABNF table.. That's what I was hoping. :) >> - It is defined as being between words and words, or words and >> separators, but it never defines what a word or a separator is. Is >> token a word? Is "foo" a word? Is "/" a separator? > > The same paragraph defines word as "token or quoted-string", kind of.. That's not clear whether that is a formal definition or an informative example of what counts as words. In the real world, it seems to be more than that. It appears whitespace is allowed within HTTP-Version, for example. > separators is defined, but does not really match actual use.. So it is just meant to be the separators rule? Ah. >> - There are all kinds of places where I think it is allowed (pending >> the above) where it really shouldn't be. As far as I can see, CRLF = >> CR *LWS LF (where the *LWS is implicit). > > How? Neither CR or LF is a word/token/quoted-string... Well, that is only worthwhile discussing once we know what a word is, and under what you're pointing at, it isn't. -- Geoffrey Sneddon <http://gsnedders.com/>
Received on Monday, 7 April 2008 18:09:36 UTC