- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:25:35 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, Benjamin Carlyle <benjamincarlyle@optusnet.com.au>
Hi,
adding apps-discuss to get more review... -- comments in-line.
On 09.02.2010 14:34, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Speaking personally --
>>
>> I'm torn here. On one hand, I'd very much like to see best practice
>> promoted here, because the wild-west situation of HTTP header parsing
>> is one of the things I really dislike, and suspect causes a lot of
>> problems.
>>
>> OTOH, we don't have any implementers stepping up and saying that
>> they're eager, and in this situation it may be too easy to specify the
>> wrong thing.
>>
>> AIUI the most liberal form of xtoken would be 1*VCHAR without DQUOTE,
>> "," or ";". Correct?
>
> That will make it:
>
> "!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")" / "*" / "+" / "-" / "." /
> "/" / DIGIT / ":" / "<" / "=" / ">" / "?" / "@" / ALPHA / "[" / "\" /
> "]" / "^" / "_" / "`" / "{" / "|" / "}" / "~"
>
> which includes the following non-token characters:
>
> "(" / ")" / "/" / ":" / "<" / "=" / ">" / "?" / "@" / "[" / "\" / "]" /
> "{" / "}"
>
> "(" and ")" *might* become a problem in headers that allow comments.
>
> "\" might be confused with the escape character in quoted strings and
> comments.
>
> Other than that, I don't see a problem.
In the meantime, Mark has added this as "ptoken" to the ABNF for the
HTTP Link Header, see
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08.html#rfc.section.5>:
ptoken = "!" | "#" | "$" | "%" | "&" | "'" | "("
| ")" | "*" | "+" | "-" | "." | "/" | DIGIT
| ":" | "<" | "=" | ">" | "?" | "@" | ALPHA
| "[" | "\" | "]" | "^" | "_" | "`" | "{"
| "|" | "}" | "~"
Are people ok with relaxing this, compared to RFC 2616 token characters?
Assuming this is ok for parameters in the Link header, should I add a
similar construct to draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http, to promote re-use in
new header definitions?
> ...
Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2010 18:26:15 UTC