I tried to adapt the syntax below to the changes I made.
The problem with URIs/URI references is solved by RFC2396bis.
I don't think [FWS] and *WSP are needed, the syntax given for
similar headers in RFC 2822 doesn't explicitly mention these,
either.
Regards, Martin.
At 15:31 04/02/26, Bruce Lilly wrote:
>Martin Duerst wrote:
>
>> Any definitive answers appreciated here. For the moment,
>> I'm just keeping it with "one URI, no comments, no special
>> mechanisms, follow the length limitations in RFC 2822".
>
>In terms of ABNF, similar to RFC 2822, that would be something like:
>
>archived-at = "Archived-At" ":" [FWS] URI-reference *WSP CRLF ;
>URI-reference not empty
>
>where "URI-Reference" is defined in RFC 2396. You may also want to
>support parsing (but not generation in new messages) of older forms,
>e.g.:
>
>obs-archived-at = ("Archived-At" / "X-Archived-At") *WSP ":" [FWS]
>URI-reference [FWS] CRLF
>
>You might want to replace URI-reference with absoluteURI in both
>places, though that would preclude use of a fragment identifier.
>Yet another alternative would be to use "absoluteURI ["#" fragment]"
>which precludes relative URIs while permitting a fragment identifier.
>It really depends on what restrictions you want to place on the types
>of URIs to be permitted.