Mark Martinec <Mark(_dot_)Martinec+ietf(_at_)ijs(_dot_)si> writes:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
I think it is clear (3 people against it) that the wording would have to
avoid "SHOULD". So here is a suggested wording avoiding 2119 language:
Although in all header fields the CFWS following the colon is optional, it
is customary practice to place at least one SP there; moreover such a SP
is mandatory in Netnews [UESFOR] (and possibly in other protocols).
Continuance of that practice by implementors is encouraged in order to
That could probably be tuned further.
The text looks fine, but I would like to point out one catch
which could result from placing too much emphasis on that space.
Namely, a header field consists of a header field name, a colon,
and a header field body, i.e. everything after a colon belongs
to a field body, including that [CFWS]. It would be wrong if
it could somehow be undestood that a field body starts only
*after* a space.
I think the "man in the street" would be surprised to be told that initial
(or even trailing) whitespace was a part of the field-body (though he
would assuredly regard any <comment> as being part of it).
So first question, is whether that is really the best definition of "field
And the second question is what differences would arise if it were defined
I think we need to understaand the implications of question 2 before
deciding whether some further tuning of the text is needed.
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk 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