- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:39:23 +0100
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >> Hi, >> >> in part 1 we currently say: >> >> "The field value MAY be preceded by optional whitespace; a single SP >> is preferred. The field-value does not include any leading or trailing >> white space: OWS occurring before the first non-whitespace character >> of the field-value or after the last non-whitespace character of the >> field-value is ignored and MAY be removed without changing the meaning >> of the header field." -- >> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-07.html#rfc.section.4.2.p.4> >> >> >> In the current edits, the last 'MAY' is a 'SHOULD', which makes it read >> >> "A field value MAY be preceded by optional whitespace (OWS); a single >> SP is preferred. The field value does not include any leading or >> trailing white space: OWS occurring before the first non-whitespace >> character of the field value or after the last non-whitespace >> character of the field value is ignored and SHOULD be removed without >> changing the meaning of the header field." >> >> I think what we really should say is that they MAY be removed before >> passing the field-value to a specific header parser, thus definitions >> of headers MUST NOT make the presence of trailing/leading whitespace >> semantically significant. > > Now tracked as <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/201>. > ... I believe this is a purely editorial issue; the text in draft 8 was confusing after a minor change from draft 7. I have now made it say: "A field value MAY be preceded by optional whitespace (OWS); a single SP is preferred. The field value does not include any leading or trailing white space: OWS occurring before the first non-whitespace character of the field value or after the last non-whitespace character of the field value is ignored and SHOULD be removed before further processing (as this does not change the meaning of the header field)." (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/748>) Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 16:40:00 UTC