Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt

At 23:05 04/10/26, Bruce Lilly wrote:
 >On Mon October 25 2004 00:42, Martin Duerst wrote:
 >>
 >> I tried to adapt the syntax below to the changes I made.
 >> The problem with URIs/URI references is solved by RFC2396bis.
 >> I don't think [FWS] and *WSP are needed, the syntax given for
 >> similar headers in RFC 2822 doesn't explicitly mention these,
 >> either.
 >>
 >> Regards,    Martin.
 >
 >Actually, RFC 2822 does include [FWS] etc., but they are part of
 >the lower-level construct specifications, so aren't readily apparent
 >when looking only at the field definitions; they do become visible
 >if one expands "domain", "dot-atom", "date-time", etc.  That
 >does not apply to the constructs used in the proposed field, since
 >the ABNF for those constructs does not explicitly include [FWS]
 >etc.  Incidentally, the successor to RFC 2822 may change in that
 >respect; a proposed revised grammar has been discussed on the
 >ietf-822 list.
 >
 >Given the draft ABNF
 >
 >       archived-at = "Archived-At:" '<' URI '>' CRLF ; URI not empty
 >
 >and the example implicit in the text
 >
 >    As an example, the URI
 >    "http://www.w3.org/mid/[email protected]",
 >    containing the message id "[email protected]",
 >    is redirected to the URI of this message in the W3C mailing-list
 >    archive at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004Oct/0017.html.
 >
 >implies that
 >
 > Archived-At:<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004Oct/0017.html>
 >
 >is legal but
 >
 > Archived-At: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004Oct/0017.html>
 >                    ^ N.B. SP here
 > Archived-At: (w3 list archive)
 >   <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004Oct/0017.html>
 >
 >etc. are not legal.

Thanks for pointing this out. I changed the definition to:

archived-at = "Archived-At:" *WSP '<' URI '>' CRLF ; URI not empty

(and similar for obs-archived-at), because that's what was intended.
No whitespace after the colon looks really weird, but I don't care
about comments.

 >Concerning that example, please note that a message identifier (RFC 2822)
 >includes angle brackets; i.e. the message id is presumably
 >"<[email protected]>".  When using mid
 >schemes or conversions which implicitly involve msg-id to mid or
 >mid-like constructs, it might be advisable to note the difference in
 >angle bracket inclusion and/or to refer to the mid RFC (2387) as a
 >normative or informative reference.  The angle bracket issue has also
 >been recently discussed on the ietf-822 list.

I have tweaked the text in a way that I hope will avoid
misunderstandings.

 >Note also that RFC 2822 has provisions in the parse (obs-) syntax
 >for accommodation of whitespace between the field name and the colon
 >delimiter (which was allowed in earlier versions of the text message format).
 >You might wish to consider whether to provide for that for parsing,
 >particularly in the obs- rule for X-Archived-At.

Considered but left out. There are no X-Archived-At headers
out that have such a space, so we don't need to introduce this.


Regards,   Martin.

Regards,    Martin.