[Top] [All Lists]

2821 Dot-string (was: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 5: Syntax of ID clause in Received trace header)

2007-04-03 09:30:09

Tony Hansen wrote:

Unless people can find examples where quoted-strings were actually used,
I would like to close this issue out with the recommendation to change
"string" to "atom".

You'd need <Dot-string> instead of <Atom> if you want to allow dots.

A 2821 <Dot-string> is exactly the same as a 2822 <dot-atom-text>, for
consistency with 2822 I'd prefer to replace s/Dot-string/dot-atom-text/g

[2822 3.2.4]:
| atom            =       [CFWS] 1*atext [CFWS]
| dot-atom        =       [CFWS] dot-atom-text [CFWS]
| dot-atom-text   =       1*atext *("." 1*atext)

| Dot-string     = Atom *("."  Atom)
| Atom           = 1*atext

It's already bad that 2821 and 2822 use similar terms for syntactically
different things, e.g. <Atom> vs. <atom>, or <Mailbox> vs. <mailbox>,
confusing some folks including me again and again.

The opposite case, different terms for syntactically identical concepts,
is IMO just a bad idea.  Maybe there are historical reasons for it, and
maybe DRUMS intentionally wanted to confuse future readers, but I think
it's wrong without further evidence.


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