- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 09:20:57 +1000
- To: Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com>
- Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, last-call@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure@ietf.org
> On 19 May 2020, at 7:23 am, Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com> wrote: > >>> You saw >>> >>> An empty List is denoted by not serializing the field at all. >>> >>> right? >> >> That's about serialization. >> >> 4.2.1 seems to parse an empty string into an empty list. >> >> AFAICT, that's in conflict with the ABNF. > > Thanks for clarifying. As per S 1.2 [1], the ABNF is not for parsing; it's for 'illustrat[ing] the range of acceptable wire representations.' The ABNF requires at least one member because sending an empty field value is not good practice; it's not something we encourage. > FWIW I already have a comment staged about how we seem to make the > ABNF normative for serialization but the prose normative for parsing, > which seems like a weird mismatch that requires justification. ABNF isn't normative for serialisation; what led you to that conclusion? 1. https://httpwg.org/http-extensions/draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure.html#notational-conventions -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 18 May 2020 23:21:29 UTC