- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:29:05 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
tis 2009-08-25 klockan 14:47 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:
> > So imho quoted-pair should be
> >
> > quoted-text = %x09 / %x20-%x7E / obs-text
> > ; WSP / VCHAR / obs-text
> > quoted-pair = "\" qchar
> >
> > to match the use of *TEXT in 2616, making comments and quoted strings
> > all fit within *TEXT as those constructs is only used in detailed forms
> > which should be a subset of the more generic *TEXT.
>
> "qchar" being...?
A typo
quoted-pair = "\" quoted-text
> > If you look closely you'll notice the quoted-text and field-contents
> > definitions above are equal. Perhaps a common term should be defined for
> > that similar to the *TEXT element used in 2616. There is probably more
> > places where using said term would make sense. And sorry, no I do not
> > have a good suggested BNF name for this construct.. TEXT would be
> > confusing with 2616 and text in lower case too generic to be used in
> > describing text. general-text?
> > ...
>
> "characters"?
Is WSP and obs-text characters? Other than that no opinion either way..
> Anyway, my take away from your analysis is: "yes, CTLs need to be
> disallowed both in comments and quoted-text", right?
Yes. CTLs should be disallowed in quoted-pair except for those included
in WSP (HT).
Regards
Henrik
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 14:29:47 UTC