Re: #314: realm parameter syntax

On 2011-11-20 19:15, Yutaka OIWA wrote:
> Dear Julian,
>
> I support the final conclusion, but am only against the reasoning text.
> The fact that people did a "loose" thing does not mean
> that the followers should do as well.
> We have a direct reason to do so instead, doesn't we?
>
> If there are any major "senders" which have been sent token realms
> for a long time, it is much important than the current reason.

That's true; but I don't know whether this is the case. Do you?

> In this case, I propose the following:
>
>> Recipients are RECOMMENDED to accept both token and quoted-
>> string syntax as both have been sent by several HTTP servers
>> (and successfully accepted by common user-agents) for many years.
>
> # In this case, there should be an RFC2119 "RECOMMENDED", I think.

RECOMMENDED==SHOULD. If we did this, I think it clearly would need to be 
MUST, because I can't think of any "valid reasons" not to.

> If not, my proposal is a much simpler clause as:
>
>> Recipients might have to support both token and quoted-
>> string syntax for maximum input tolerability (both have been
>> accepted by common user-agents for many years).
>
> # or, s/might have to support/might be better supporting/
>
> Yes, input tolerability is a good thing (at least on this case).

Or, maybe:

"Recipients might have to support both token and quoted-string syntax 
for maximum interoperability with existing clients that have been 
accepting both notations for a long time."

?

Best regards, Julian

Received on Sunday, 20 November 2011 18:30:37 UTC