Re: suggestions for examples and explication wrt ABNF and header fields in draft-ietf-httpbis-p1

=JeffH wrote:
> Thanks for addressing this stuff Julian.
>  >> In Section 1.2.2 Basic Rules...
>  >>
>  >>  >    Many HTTP/1.1 header field values consist of words separated by
>  >>                                                    ^^^^^
>  >>                                                    tokens
>  >
>  > I don't think "token" would be correct here.
> Here's my rationale: "word" is used only twice in 
> draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging with respect to composition and parsing 
> of (header field) string values (both occurrences being in "1.2.2.  
> Basic Rules"), yet what constitutes a "word" in this context is not 
> defined anywhere in the spec, and seems superfluous. Tokens, however, 
> are clearly defined in this context, and the word "token" is a term of 
> art in the text parsing discipline (at least it was when I took my 
> compilers class :)

Yes. I don't claim that word == token, otherwise I would already have 
made that change.

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." -- 

So what got lost is the explanation word = token / quoted-string. 
Apparently we need to resurrect that part.

> ...

BR, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2010 16:24:12 UTC