[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Recap: 2821bis-01 Issue 5: Sect 4.4. Syntax of ID in trace: needs confirmation

2007-04-17 10:11:30

Tony Hansen wrote:

I'd like to reconfirm the consensus between these two choices:

(i) change "string" to "atom"
(ii) change "string" to "dot-string"

With the examples of <Dot-string>s shown here I tend to (II).

In <> I proposed
to replace 2821 <Dot-string> by 2822 <dot-atom-text> because
they are syntactically equivalent.

There are only six uses of <Atom> in 2821bis-01, two of them in
the <Dot-string>.  Confusingly a 2821 <Atom> isn't the same as
a 2821 <atom>, the latter is [CFWS] 1*atext [CFWS], but in 2821
it's only 1*atext.

I propose to replace the remaining four 2821 <Atom> by 1*atext
eliminating this potential cause of confusion:

- String         = Atom / Quoted-string
+ String         = 1*atext  / Quoted-string

- Addtl-Link     = Atom
+ Addtl-Link     = 1*atext

- Attdl-Protocol = Atom
+ Attdl-Protocol = 1*atext

- Argument       = Atom
+ Argument       = 1*atext

The uses of <String> in 2821bis, ignoring the settled "ID" case,
have to be checked:  Are the arguments for EXPN, VRFY, HELP,
and NOOP really a <Quoted-string> if they're no <Atom> ?

In other words, is 'HELP me now' a syntax error, should it be
'HELP "me now"' ?  Comparing it with RFC 821, apparently these
strings used to be *_unquoted_* strings of any <c> (= <atext>)
or "\" <x> (= <quoted-pair>).  Is 'HELP me\ now' acceptable ?

RFC 821 allowed no argument for NOOP.  Please add this to the
todo list for an "implementation and interoperability report":
Are NOOP arguments supported, or do they cause havoc ?


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