- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 06:28:00 +0100
- To: Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com> wrote: > Explain further why you don't recommend ABNF for this case. We don't recommend ABNF in general because often ABNF results in a mismatch between prescribed and actual processing. E.g. Content-Type is defined as an ABNF and technically "text/html;" does not match that ABNF, but everyone (logically) processes that as "text/html" without parameters. It's much better to define the actual processing so implementers are less inclined to take shortcuts when implementing (test suites also help, but they're typically written way-after-the-fact). > You should also explain whether another change to make section 9 more readable is > appropriate (though it currently is relatively readable as is). I'll leave that to Gordon. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 24 May 2013 05:28:30 UTC