On tis, 2008-05-27 at 11:46 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > For now, I'm just trying to make progress on the ABNF conversion; *not* > on changing the allowed syntax (for which I think we don't have > consensus yet). I am in favor of splitting the BNF in "recommended" and "obsolete" syntax, just done for MIME. Any change which lines up HTTP BNF with MIME BNF will also have an automatic +1 from me. There is a lot gained if the community can stick to a as common syntax as possible. Just as for MIME the silly constructs is where most parsing interop issues is seen. There is many implementations which do fail on empty list members, excessive line folding (or folding at all), incorrectly placed CR characters etc. There is a lot fewer implementations that rely on such features, and the very few I have seen so far using "silly" construct has been mostly caused bugs and not intentional constructs and where folding or empty list elements rules accidently makes the message still valid.. Regards Henrik
Received on Monday, 2 June 2008 10:32:10 UTC