Tony Hansen wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
Juan Altmayer Pizzorno wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 12:06:39PM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
i haven't looked the abnf, but i'm guessing that order matters? it looks
a little odd to my aesthetics to be using white space as the delimiter.
maybe it would be better to not define an explicit order, but and
delimit the tag values by, oh say, comma?
In other words,
dkim=pass (comment), header.i=xyz.com;
?
yeah, that's what i was after. or maybe just more generally,
tag=value comment* [, tag=value comment*] ;
and not even enforce positionality of whether dkim=pass comes
first or whatever. that would allow us to add other things in the
future as well. makes the parser simpler as well.
-1
The comment is already explicitly there as part of CFWS (the "C" stands
for comment, after all).
What's the big deal about having cfws after every tag/value? That makes
each element completely symmetric and thus easier to parse.
And I think having dkim=pass (or whatever=pass/fail/etc.) is the most
important part of the semantics of each methodspec section and needs to
be first.
Why? It used to be last. I never lost sleep over it one way or the
other. Making the order irrelevant definitely makes the parsing
easier though.
I don't care if there's a comma there or not; I don't think the parsing
is easier or harder with or without it.
except for fws.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html