- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:48:22 +0200
- To: IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- CC: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
On 13.01.2010 17:40, =JeffH wrote: > > RFC2616 said: > > > > "The grammar described by this specification is word-based. Except where > > noted otherwise, linear white space (LWS) can be included between any > > two adjacent words (token or quoted-string), and between adjacent words > > and separators, without changing the interpretation of a field." -- > > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#basic.rules> > > yes, good catch. > > > > So what got lost is the explanation word = token / quoted-string. > > Apparently we need to resurrect that part. > > If you want to retain those two instances of using "word" rather than > "token", then yes, I agree you'd want to resurrect (in some way) that > portion of 2616 you quoted. I think you'd want to be sure include the > parenthetical "..two adjacent words (token or quoted-string).." that > indicates that what the prose is referring to as a "word" is either a > token or a quoted-string in the ABNF. > ... Picking up an older thread...: We now have "word" explained in the prose (as of draft 09). What's still left to discuss is whether we want to change the ABNF, defining word = token / quoted-string and use "word" throughout where we currently have "token / quoted-string". Proposed change in: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/200/i200.diff> Last-calling... I intend to make this change (affecting Parts 1 and 3) later this week. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 12 April 2010 13:49:02 UTC