On 1/25/08 at 11:16 AM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
were the following ever legal instantiations of <#element>?
, element ,
element, element,
, , ,
Yes.
Got that. See my reply to Dave.
That's the reason why 4234bis deprecates LWSP in an ABNF-comment [...]
What? What does one thing have to do with the other?
If you want to "allow" series of comma (as "obs") it's one thing,
but if you want to reintroduce LWSP in any shape or form I think you
need an IAB majority.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. First of all,
something akin to LWSP *is* allowed (and has been allowed since 2822)
in "obs"; see section 4.2 of 2822 and of the present document.
However, I don't see how any of that involves the IAB. Did you mean
the IESG?
What about the more interesting question of a "bare SP" within
<quoted-string> asked on the SMT list ? RFC 2822 demands that SP
cannot occure outside of <quoted-pair> in a <quoted-string>:
Invalid: "sp ce"@example Valid: "sp\ ce"@example Is that as it should be ?
Of course, both of those are valid in 2822. That's a bug in 2821 that
should be fixed.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102