<< Implementations are required to ignore trailing whitespace on boundary
<< lines. If implementations can't do a match on the "<CRLF>--outer", then
<< they have to be able to do an *arbitrary* amount of lookahead, to make
<< sure there isn't a non-whitespace octet between the 35 megabytes of
<< spaces/tabs and the following CRLF.
< I'm sorry to have to say it, but you're absoltuely right. I remember this
< discussion now. And you're right -- the combination of the new LWSP rules
< make this a really tough problem in terms of lookahead.
I personally don't have a problem with the lookahead. That's what seek()'s
are for, and in practice, you'll never have 35 megabytes of whitespace
before the potential non-whitespace octet.
< I'm going to make the terminology consistent, correct the prose to match
< the grammar, stop worrying at the thing, and post a new draft ASAP. And
< we'll see how it goes from there. It now seems to me that we have to
< choosed between allowing LWSP at the end and allowing one boundary to be a
< substring of another.
My choice is to allow white space after the boundary marker AND to allow one
boundary to be a substring of the other.
Ned