- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 09:45:14 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 24/05/2008, at 6:13 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > Henrik Nordstrom wrote: >> On fre, 2008-05-23 at 15:19 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> The more I look into this, the better the original syntax looks :-) >> Yes, there is reasons why HTTP has the list syntax.. and I think that >> one does a great job in keeping the BNF readable. >> The reasons for the implied LWS is the same, to make the grammar more >> readable, but unfortunately that one hasn't worked out very well.. >> If we can get the BNF syntax to a level of >> ABNF + list syntax, without implied LWS >> then a lot is gained. > > Right. > > In particular it seems it would be wise to solve the "implied LWS" > issue *first*, and only then start looking at the list production. +1 >> Eleminating the list syntax is mainly a goal to line up the HTTP BNF >> syntax completely with other specifications, but I have a feeling >> that >> it may be better to extend ABNF with a usable list construct. > > I'd prefer that. > > If we can't keep it, I'd probably recommend to leave the # notation > at least in ABNF comments. +1 > > >> While we are at that topic. The specification probably should make >> sure >> to recommend producers to not produce lists with empty elements (a >> SHOULD NOT). Not sure we have that in the specs today. Parsers MUST >> accept them however and is what the BNF description describes but >> there >> quite likely is many broken implementations out there not expecting >> empty elements.. > > What do others think? Is there consensus for this? In which case we > should raise a separate issue. > > BR, Julian > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 24 May 2008 23:45:51 UTC