IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-822] [abnf-discuss] Wherefore no HTAB in literal text strings in ABNF

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 15 August 2016 05:52 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FBD312D59E; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wbSmNXZqBSEu; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay2-d.mail.gandi.net (relay2-d.mail.gandi.net [IPv6:2001:4b98:c:538::194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38A2B12B076; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mfilter31-d.gandi.net (mfilter31-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.162]) by relay2-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A784DC5A4F; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:52:40 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter31-d.gandi.net
Received: from relay2-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.194]) by mfilter31-d.gandi.net (mfilter31-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 71kdTWH8GtUU; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:52:38 +0200 (CEST)
X-Originating-IP: 93.199.227.76
Received: from nar-4.local (p5DC7E34C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.199.227.76]) (Authenticated sender: cabo@cabo.im) by relay2-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E769EC5A43; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:52:32 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <57B15896.8060309@tzi.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:52:22 +0200
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
References: <3CCAE9E2-DCE8-4AEC-9FDE-FA00A0C3727E@seantek.com>
In-Reply-To: <3CCAE9E2-DCE8-4AEC-9FDE-FA00A0C3727E@seantek.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/T7Wi8xauRpvMzYAP1ld3YOVFGu4>
Cc: ietf-822@ietf.org, ABNF-Discuss <abnf-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ietf-822] [abnf-discuss] Wherefore no HTAB in literal text strings in ABNF
X-BeenThere: ietf-822@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Internet Message Format \[RFC 822, RFC 2822, RFC 5322\]" <ietf-822.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-822/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-822@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 05:52:44 -0000

I wasn't there when the decision was made, but clearly bare HTs don't
belong in specification texts, so leaving them out was a rather obvious
decision.
(But maybe I don't understand the question.)
HTs in comments cause ugliness, but are not as devastating as HTs in
semantically relevant parts of the specification.

Grüße, Carsten

Sean Leonard wrote:
> Hello Knowledgeable ABNF Folks:
> 
> I have been working with RFC 5234 lately. What is the rationale (or what are the rationales) for including SP %d32 but excluding HTAB %d9 in char-val, aka the literal text string? I am sure that this decision was not an oversight.
> 
> It may be appreciated that the comment production is defined as WSP, which includes HTAB.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Sean
> _______________________________________________
> abnf-discuss mailing list
> abnf-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abnf-discuss
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email