Re: Parsing the Injection-Info: header field

Hi Charles,

>>I understand that RFC 2045 now extends the syntax of RFC 5322 (instead
>>of RFC 822).
>
> How can that possibly be so, since it was written umpteen years earlier=
?
> Anything that "extended RFC 5322 would have to be written _after_ that.

A misunderstanding of mine.
I thought that if an article was to comply with RFC 5322, then the syntax
of extended fields (defined by MIME), was to be restricted to what RFC 53=
22
allows.  But that does not seem to be the case.

Thanks, Antti-Juhani and Charles, for having explained what should be
done for MIME.


> RFC 2045, and its relations, provides syntax for many new header fields.
> From reading RFC 2045 and RFC 822, you can deduce *exactly* where CFWS =
is
> allowed. If RFC were to be re-written (a highly desirable thing BTW), t=
hen
> if would redefine its syntax with explicite CFWS, presumably in exactly
> the same places as now, unless it chose to declare some of them to be
> obsolete as 5322 has done.
>
> It is clear that, according to RFC 2045, CFWS is allowed on both sides =
of
> the '=3D' in a <parameter> (and why shouldn't it?). And, just to make s=
ure, I
> checked my interpretation with Keith Moore before writing the original
> version of the paragraph which you quoted.

Yeah, no problem.  Sorry for the disturbance of my thread.

For what it is worth, I also had an answer from the YAM group meanwhile:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00279.html

    [Ned Freed]
    "RFCs 2045 and 2046 were written before DRUMS and RFCs
    2821/2822/5321/5322 and therefore used the syntactic convensions of R=
FC 822,
    where LWSP is implicitly allowed between tokens. The fact that DRUMS =
opted to
    make the places where LWSP is allowed explicit rather than implicit d=
oesn't
    change the syntax rules for 2045 and 2046 in any way. shape or form.

    I also note that had RFC 5322 had any effect on MIME syntax, the head=
er of the
    document would show that it updates RFCs 2045 and 2046. The document =
header
    says no such thing.

    P.S. When revised MIME specifications come out they will probably swi=
tch to the
    explicit LWSP approach since it seems that's the preferred way to do =
it now."

--=20
Julien =C9LIE

=AB Cela n'a rien de remarquable. Il suffit d'appuyer
  sur la bonne touche au bon moment et l'instrument
  joue tout seul. =BB (J.-S. Bach)=20