- From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 20:31:16 +0200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Julian Reschke wrote: > The rule is called "implied *LWS", but then it doesn't > state whether it's really "*LWS" or "[ LWS ]". > And yes, *LWS and [ LWS ] are different; the latter > only allows one CRLF. You are right, *LWS is the same as [LWSP] or [FWS], it is not [LWS]. And it's certainly eating *my* brain. :-( > right now I'm just trying to understand whether there > *is* a mechanical way to transform the RFC2616 ABNF so > that the implied LWS rule can go. There is a way to translate # constructs, outside of # I'm not sure. I guess they didn't replace 822 by 2234 and 2822, because everybody understood 822... <gd&r> Frank
Received on Friday, 6 June 2008 18:30:30 UTC