Re: Ambiguities in header-field rules (p1-messaging)
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sun, 21 August 2011 15:11 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8425E21F8754 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 08:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.092
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.507, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jt5HpviX-8xF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 08:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09C6B21F876F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 08:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Qv9gH-00031W-D2 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:11:21 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1Qv9g6-00030b-CL for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:11:10 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]) by lisa.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1Qv9g5-0000mk-A0 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:11:10 +0000
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2011 15:10:41 -0000
Received: from p508FACE0.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [80.143.172.224] by mail.gmx.net (mp065) with SMTP; 21 Aug 2011 17:10:41 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+BbsNaRLmBspiei9w25c8o3H49xLPFf3K29XdKNI 58EHQZhDgIwEX/
Message-ID: <4E511FEC.3090007@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 17:10:36 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Frank Mertens <frank@cyblogic.de>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <4E4C013D.2090407@cyblogic.de> <88b489507e504d9eef318438194f929e@treenet.co.nz> <4E4CC8A3.5070503@cyblogic.de>
In-Reply-To: <4E4CC8A3.5070503@cyblogic.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=213.165.64.23; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mailout-de.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Qv9g5-0000mk-A0 d639195046532c1836f953c1d4774eac
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Ambiguities in header-field rules (p1-messaging)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4E511FEC.3090007@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/11218
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Qv9gH-00031W-D2@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:11:21 +0000
On 2011-08-18 10:09, Frank Mertens wrote: > ... > Yes, we should also have a strict version of the grammar. > But for now, I'm happy with a working tolerant one;) > Replacing OWS by BWS would also disable support for line folding. > ... We have discussed this years ago and as far as I recall decided to keep things simple by having a single ABNF, and add additional producer constraints into prose. At this stage, I'm very reluctant to change this. Best regards, Julian
- Ambiguities in header-field rules (p1-messaging) Frank Mertens
- Re: Ambiguities in header-field rules (p1-messagi… Amos Jeffries
- Re: Ambiguities in header-field rules (p1-messagi… Frank Mertens
- Re: Ambiguities in header-field rules (p1-messagi… Frank Mertens
- Re: Ambiguities in header-field rules (p1-messagi… Amos Jeffries
- Re: Ambiguities in header-field rules (p1-messagi… Frank Mertens
- Re: Ambiguities in header-field rules (p1-messagi… Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Ambiguities in header-field rules (p1-messagi… Julian Reschke