- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:03:51 +0200
- To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
On 07.06.2010 14:24, Adrien de Croy wrote: > ... > hang on a minute. The existing BNF is logically incorrect, the proposed > replacement is logically correct, but we worry about confusion? > ... Nope. The proposed ABNF violates the syntax requirement for list-typed headers, at least when read literally: "Multiple header fields with the same field name MUST NOT be sent in a message unless the entire field value for that header field is defined as a comma-separated list [i.e., #(values)]." -- <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-09.html#rfc.section.3.2.p.6> > I think it's more likely to create implementor confusion by having the > ABNF disagree with the prose. It should still be clear to anyone that > the choice is between a list of request directives or a list of response > directives. I think that's pretty clear already. Do we have evidence that *anybody* has been confused about this in the past? > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 14:04:32 UTC