- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:23:31 +0200
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> fre 2009-09-25 klockan 14:40 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:
>
>> - whether that's purely advisory or a requirement (SHOULD?), I lean to
>> the former, and
>
> SHOULD == RECOMMENDED.
Yes.
> \ quoting more than needed is not an error, but not recommended as some
> applications may not understand \ quoting...
I know I'm nitpicking here, but...:
"3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course." --
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119#section-3>
So what would constitute a valid reason for escaping characters that do
not need escaping? Lazyness IMHO doesn't count as "valid".
>> - where exactly to state it, as quoted-pair is used both inside
>> quoted-string and comment, and the characters that need escaping thus
>> differ; one way to fix this would be to change the ABNF so "comment"
>> gets it's own quoted-cpair rule.
>
> Just a general statement that the producer SHOULD NOT \ quote other
> characters than the reserved ones for the type of data produced (comment
> or quoted-string).
>
> There is no need to overdo this, and absolutely no reason to complicate
> the BNF for it.
I agree with that, and I also agree it's good advice to tell people not
to quote things that do not need quoting. Just trying to find the right
prose...
BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 25 September 2009 21:24:33 UTC