Subject: Re: Struggling with LWS (2616) vs LWSP (2831bis)

From: Henrik Nordstrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:31:22 +0200

On tis, 2008-05-27 at 11:46 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:

> For now, I'm just trying to make progress on the ABNF conversion; *not* 
> on changing the allowed syntax (for which I think we don't have 
> consensus yet).

I am in favor of splitting the BNF in "recommended" and "obsolete"
syntax, just done for MIME.

Any change which lines up HTTP BNF with MIME BNF will also have an
automatic +1 from me. There is a lot gained if the community can stick
to a as common syntax as possible.

Just as for MIME the silly constructs is where most parsing interop
issues is seen. There is many implementations which do fail on empty
list members, excessive line folding (or folding at all), incorrectly
placed CR characters etc.

There is a lot fewer implementations that rely on such features, and the
very few I have seen so far using "silly" construct has been mostly
caused bugs and not intentional constructs and where folding or empty
list elements rules accidently makes the message still valid..

Regards
Henrik