Ned Freed <NED(_at_)INNOSOFT(_dot_)COM> writes:
The grammar for the body-part nonterminal prohibits the delimiter from
occuring anywhere in the message body, but it does not prohibit a
close-delimiter from occuring anywhere in the body-part.
Good point. I've fixed this.
Using your new BNF, I would word it as:
body-part := <"message" as defined in RFC 822, with all
header fields optional, not starting with the
specified dash-boundary, and with a CRLF followed
by the specified dash-boundary
not occurring anywhere in the message body.
Note that the semantics of a part
differ from the semantics of a message, as
described in the text.>
If the terminating CRLF is moved back to the encapsulation from the
delimiter, then the "CRLF followed by the specified dash-boundary" can
be simplified to "the specified delimiter".
Well, this is part of the price you pay for using ABNF, I'm afraid. I've
changed things to refer to LWSP instead of spaces, but aside from calling
attention to the places where LWSP is not allowed that's about all I can do.
I'm starting to get confused. Since this isn't a structured field
body we're parsing, free insertion of linear-white-space is not
implied (good thing, I don't want to have to parse 822-comments here).
From the grammar, there is no reason to think that LWSP would be
allowed anywhere. The comments that LWSP aren't allowed in particular
places seem to be redundant and confusing.
The text, on the other hand, implies that LWSP has to be ignored in
certain places (like the ends of delimiter lines). This requirement
is not reflected in the grammar.
--
_.John G. Myers Internet: jgm+(_at_)CMU(_dot_)EDU
LoseNet: ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up