I wasn't there when the decision was made, but clearly bare HTs don't
belong in specification texts, so leaving them out was a rather obvious
decision.
(But maybe I don't understand the question.)
HTs in comments cause ugliness, but are not as devastating as HTs in
semantically relevant parts of the specification.
Grüße, Carsten
Sean Leonard wrote:
Hello Knowledgeable ABNF Folks:
I have been working with RFC 5234 lately. What is the rationale (or what are
the rationales) for including SP %d32 but excluding HTAB %d9 in char-val, aka
the literal text string? I am sure that this decision was not an oversight.
It may be appreciated that the comment production is defined as WSP, which
includes HTAB.
Regards,
Sean
_______________________________________________
abnf-discuss mailing list
abnf-discuss(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abnf-discuss
_______________________________________________
ietf-822 mailing list
ietf-822(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822