- From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 21:46:15 +0200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
- Cc: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
Hi, in an IETF LAST CALL a draft for a proposed standard managed to copy <OWS> syntax "by value", and fortunately I had the right idea where the source might be: httpbis-p1-messaging-15 (now 16). In essence that draft claimed (in prose) that producers of <OWS> SHOULD (upper-case) limit their efforts to a single SP. There are two problems with that approach: Apparently folks do not like the STD 68 (ABNF) HTAB in WSP, and arguably they have a point based on RFC 5198 "Net UTF-8" section 2 point 3. [The arguing party would be me, and visibly in RFC 5198 I lost.] You could simply shift HT to the <obs-...> part of <OWS>, e.g., OWS = *[obs-wsp / SP] obs-wsp = (CRLF WSP) / HTAB CRLF = <RFC 5234 Internet standard newline> WSP = SP / HTAB ; adopted from RFC 5234 HTAB = <RFC 5234 horizontal tab> SP = <RFC 5234 space> Inventing a new name <OWS> for the STD 68 "multi-folding" oddity could be another issue, did you really want to get rid of *all* foldings? That there is no line length limit in HTTP is not the same as "we want no folding at all". I'd prefer to use the same approach in HTTP as in RFC 5322 with its <FWS> and <obs-FWS>. But if discouraging any folding and/or HTAB is the goal you will obviously need some kind of <OWS>. It is still a bad idea to use <OWS> elsewhere in new HTTP header fields such as Origin: before httpbis-p1-messaging is approved. -Frank
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 19:47:24 UTC