Subject: ABNF and Structured fields

From: Roberto Polli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 08:24:00 +0200

Dear all,

Which is the best way to describe structured fields? While there was a
discussion on removing ABNF, I saw that in priorities there is still a
reference to it.

Is it fine then to use ABNF when describing SF?

Thanks for your time,
R

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 08:11:29 +0100

Hey Roberto,

> Is it fine then to use ABNF when describing SF?

We've been working on addressing this question in the HTTP style guide [1].

The style change were applied in the Priorities draft as part of AUTH48.
The following PR was merged into the branch with all AUTH48 changes, we
just won't see that as a rendered output until the RFC is published

https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1977

I can work on an equivalent update PR to the Digest spec to align it to the
HTTP style guide.

Cheers
Lucas

[1] - https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide

---

From: Roberto Polli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 11:05:47 +0200

Hi Lucas,

> The style change were applied in the Priorities draft as part of AUTH48.

Ok, I wasn't able to see the changes on `main`. It seems I checked the
wrong branch (it was auth48) :)

> I can work on an equivalent update PR to the Digest spec to align it to the HTTP style guide.

Sure thanks! Once defined the right way to do it, I can provide the
rest of the changes.

Have a nice day,
R.