Re: Message signatures, structured fields and ABNF

Hi Roberto,

> On 27 May 2022, at 9:13 am, Roberto Polli <> wrote:
> Dear all,
> after reading the HTTP Style guide
> I was trying to refactor RateLimit
> to remove ABNF and I am finding the document less readable than before.
> Looking at
> I think that removing ABNF from there is even more complicated.
> Which is a suitable replacement for ABNF to be used in cases such as
> Message Signatures?
> While Structured Fields is capable of disassembling the structure of  a field,
> it can't formally describe the specific content/format of a string.

The point of Structured Fields is that they're not strings, conceptually -- they're data structures. Eventually, we might come up with a simple schema language for them, but for now prose should be adequate.

Taking a quick look at the document - personally, I don't think the ABNF adds much, and indeed in some cases makes it more confusing (e.g., saying something is a sf-item doesn't convey anything about the constraints on that item).


Mark Nottingham

Received on Friday, 27 May 2022 00:47:19 UTC