Re: I-D Action:draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-00.txt
"Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.http-wg,gmane.ietf.rfc822 |
|---|---|
| Organization | <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy> |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> Filename : draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-00.txt Good. What's the plan wrt ABNF ? This memo is harmless enough that it could offer both, a normative STD 68 ABNF, and an informative appendix using an appropriate mix of the 2231 + 2616 BNF. As it happens the draft already contains an "appropriate mix", because it doesn't need the advanced feature of the #-rule. The general idea of "HTTP does not need continuations" could boil down to *WSP for all implicit LWS in the BNF. Or in other words replace any "=" by EQU, and specify | EQU = *WSP "=" *WSP Even if we end up with something slightly more obscure, e.g., EQU = [FWS] "=" [FWS], the BNF hides one subtle point in <ext-parameter>: | ext-parameter = attribute "*=" ext-value I _think_ that "*=" actually means "*" EQU in RFC 2231, i.e. there can be LWS between "*" and "=". It can as well mean LWS "*" EQU, i.e. there can be LWS before "*", between "*" and "=", or after "=". I think it does _not_ mean LWS "*=" LWS remotely in the direction of an *= operator. Frank