[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Poll: consensus to change the encoded-character extension

2007-04-10 12:32:00

On Tue, Apr 10, 2007, Kjetil Torgrim Homme 
<kjetilho(_at_)ifi(_dot_)uio(_dot_)no> said:

On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 18:08 +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
 From my reading of the mailing list it sounds like there is consensus 
to do the following change: [...]

And this needs to be updated if people want to allow for trailing LSWP 
(before the closing "}")

if trailing LWSP is allowed, leading LWSP should be allowed, too.  I
don't mind making such a change.  I don't mind making the other changes,
either (including 1*HEXDIG).

Something like this:

   encoded-character    = "${" encoded-char-scheme ":" encoded-char-seq
   encoded-char-scheme  = hex / unicode
   encoded-char-seq     = *(LWSP WSP 1*HEXDIG) LWSP

Note that LWSP is optional by definition, so we have to include SP or WSP
to force some kind of separator between 1*HEXDIG's. Note that this is not
valid according to the syntax above,


..because 123 and ABC do not have WSP between them. Use WSP / CR / LF? Is
there some variant of LWSP that mandates at least one character of
something be present?

I think there are three options for values that are out of range:

 1. Throw an error and reject the script.
 2. Ignore the offending value.
 3. Insert some placeholder like ' ' or '?'.

I concur that comments should not be allowed.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>