W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2022

Re: Editorial styling inconsistencies when referring to Structured Fields

From: Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 15:28:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CAP9qbHV-LkAUZeHJE2Xrh03c0dzPdLjzCxCH4QcGvHqK6HspEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Mark & al.

Il giorno mer 16 feb 2022 alle ore 23:49 Mark Nottingham
<mnot@mnot.net> ha scritto:
> Yeah, that seems like a good idea. I've opened:
>   https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1974

SF achieves the goal of associating types to each field part, but it relies
on prose - which is subject to interpretation - to describe relations
between all those parts.

ABNF is limited to syntax, but it's formal and can be used to
label single field parts and compose them... maybe we should identify
some conventions to express those relations with SF too.

An "exercise" in SF could be to express Accept-Encoding
https://httpwg.org/http-core/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-latest.html#rfc.section.12.5.3
accordingly to https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1974
without using abnf:  which would be the result?

Have a nice day,
R.
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2022 14:29:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 17 February 2022 14:29:13 UTC