Re: #168: understanding CC directives

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?
> ...


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)]." -- 

> 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