- From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 06:57:57 -0600
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, simon.schueppel@googlemail.com, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > It should be verified as technical, but (like Julian) I think the > fix should be limited to field-content and obs-fold: > > Section: 3.2 > > Original Text > ------------- > field-name = token > field-value = *( field-content / obs-fold ) > field-content = field-vchar [ 1*( SP / HTAB ) field-vchar ] > field-vchar = VCHAR / obs-text > > obs-fold = CRLF 1*( SP / HTAB ) > ; obsolete line folding > ; see Section 3.2.4 > > Corrected Text > -------------- > field-name = token > field-value = *( field-content / obs-fold ) > field-content = field-vchar [ 1*( SP / HTAB / field-vchar ) field-vchar ] > field-vchar = VCHAR / obs-text > > obs-fold = OWS CRLF RWS > ; obsolete line folding > ; see Section 3.2.4 > > This fixes the problem examples and keeps obs-fold separate from field-content. > It would be best if some other folks could confirm the above before making > the errata official. > > ....Roy > > Roy's proposal still leaves leading/trailing obs-folds inside field-value, which Simon's proposal tries to address. The original text, which appears more complicated than necessary, was probably trying to trim white spaces as well from core elements, a practice that's consistently followed throughout the RFC. Zhong Yu
Received on Saturday, 7 February 2015 12:58:25 UTC