Re: Comma-seperated lists

On 1/25/08 at 11:16 AM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:

>>were the following ever legal instantiations of <#element>?
>>
>>, element ,
>>element, element,
>>, , ,
>
>Yes.

Got that. See my reply to Dave.

>That's the reason why 4234bis deprecates LWSP in an ABNF-comment [...]

What? What does one thing have to do with the other?

>If you want to "allow" series of comma (as "obs") it's one thing, 
>but if you want to reintroduce LWSP in any shape or form I think you 
>need an IAB majority.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. First of all, 
something akin to LWSP *is* allowed (and has been allowed since 2822) 
in "obs"; see section 4.2 of 2822 and of the present document. 
However, I don't see how any of that involves the IAB. Did you mean 
the IESG?

>What about the more interesting question of a "bare SP" within 
><quoted-string> asked on the SMT list ?  RFC 2822 demands that SP 
>cannot occure outside of <quoted-pair> in a <quoted-string>:
>
>Invalid: "sp ce"@example   Valid: "sp\ ce"@example   Is that as it should be ?

Of course, both of those are valid in 2822. That's a bug in 2821 that 
should be fixed.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102