In <p0500160fb5dc2334e8f0(_at_)[165(_dot_)227(_dot_)249(_dot_)17]> Paul Hoffman
/ IMC <phoffman(_at_)imc(_dot_)org> writes:
At 9:07 AM +0000 9/6/00, Charles Lindsey wrote:
My understanding is that the full syntax should be:
...[CFWS];[CFWS]attribute[CFWS]=[CFWS]value[CFWS]
and I base that on the assumption that a token is an atom, and can
therefore have [CFWS] either side of it. Certainly quoted-string can have
[CFWS] either side according to DRUMS.
Is that correct? If not, why not?
It may be technically correct, but I propose that years of
interoperability testing have shown that comments cause problems. Are
the possible small value of comments worth the hassle? If you are
starting from scratch, you might consider substituting [FWS] for
[CFWS] everywhere above.
I agree they would be ugly on either side of the '=', but they might be
sensibly placed before or after the whole parameter.
From a USEFOR POV, we would want to write our syntax so as to allow
advantage to be taken of existing software written into agents that do
both mail and news. So I don't think we can forbid anything that is
allowed in mail, or mandate anything that is not allowed in mail.
Now if the MIME Gurus were to publicly state on this list that the intent
of the MIME specs was to restrict CFWS in some way, and that they would be
advocating such restrictions in the next MIME standard, then we would have
something to take note of. Essentially, we want to write a syntax that
will be consistent with best MIME practice, and we would happily remove
comments because they are a pain to parse anyway (we only included them in
the News proposals in order to be consistent with mail).
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Web:
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5