W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > August 2015

Re: [clear-site-data] header field syntax

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 21:31:42 +0200
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <55C7AA9E.20808@gmx.de>
On 2015-08-09 17:57, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 9 August 2015 at 00:31, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:
>> I'm trying to parse the `Prefer` ABNF (defined in
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7240#section-2). It says that `token` and
>> `word` are defined within Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.4 of [RFC7230], but they
>> don't appear to actually be defined there. Can you point me to the correct
>> reference (I assume `token` is from
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-3.2.6, but I can't find `word`)?
> That looks like a pretty serious erratum on 7240, which I have opened.
> The "word" rule is not defined in 7230 or even 2616.  We might
> speculate that word = token / quoted-string, which I have, but all
> that means is that you probably shouldn't use it as a model.=.

It was in a draft which was current when Prefer was approved. See, for 

> I think that Julian used a different example of the "canonical" header
> field syntax that you could use instead.

Another example would have been "Expect", but we removed everything 
except "100-continue", so it's not a useful example anymore.

So yes, "Prefer" is a good example with just

  word           = token / quoted-string


Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 9 August 2015 19:32:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:50 UTC