- From: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:08:03 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Moore, Jonathan (CIM)" <Jonathan_Moore@comcast.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Yes, they are invalid. I need to point that out. They are equivalent to the first but shouldn't ever be done. On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2011-12-12 22:15, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >> On 2011-12-08 18:56, James Snell wrote: >>> >>> Ok, a new draft has been published. >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-http-prefer-07.txt >> >> ... > > > A preference token MAY specify a value. Empty, or zero length values > on both the preference token and within parameters are equivalent to > no value being specified at all. The following, then, are > equivalent: > > Prefer: foo; bar="" > Prefer: foo=; bar > Prefer: foo=""; bar= > > In the above examples, the second and the third one are invalid (missing > value after "="). Bad examples, or bug in the ABNF? (I'd prefer the former). > > Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 19:08:32 UTC