Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 17:21:11 -0500
From: David Levine <levinedl(_at_)acm(_dot_)org>
Message-ID:
<20060203220918(_dot_)ED2621EC0CA(_at_)imap(_dot_)combinenet(_dot_)com>
| My intent was to allow the value of the field to be
| anything, for future expansion. It seems that RFCs issue at
| a faster rate than nmh can support.
I think Joel's point was that that wasn't what your grammar achieved,
it required the value of the field to be a sequence of attribute=value
tuples, whereas some new field that might want to be added (and whose
name need not necessarily start with "Content-" I would have thought)
might have some entirely different syntax, or perhaps no syntax at all.
kre
ps: Also remember, if you're using RFC ABNF grammars (as opposed to the
semi-defined thing that was in RFC822) then you also need to be explicit
about where white space is to be permitted, if anywhere. Using RFC ABNF,
the example you gave didn't fit your grammar, as you included (in the
example) spaces between "Disposition:" and "attachment", and again
between "attachment;" and "filename=" (and in the actual directive
line, between "pdf;" and "<>" and between "]" and "/tmp/foo".)
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers