[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Missing ABNF terms in 2821bis?
Pete Resnick wrote:
> Should we allow control characters in quoted-pair inside
> Should we allow quoted-pair at all in domain-literal?
No, please get rid of it. \[, \\, and \] are unnecessary
in domain-literals (and incompatible with STD 66).
> Remember that they all appear in the obsolete (i.e.,
> must be able to handle for interpretation) syntax.
I don't understand why. There never was a domain-literal
with control characters and / or quoted pairs in the wild,
what's the idea ?
It's not the same issue as for the local part (LHS).
> John, you are saying that we should leave NO-WS-CTL in
That would be about quoted-pair and qtext, and it affects
the 2821 <Mailbox> (similar to the 2822 <addr-spec>). If
an "implementation and interoperability report" would show
that it anyway doesn't work, can it be moved to obsolete ?
> And the answer to whether or not we should leave NO-WS-CTL
> in these is....?
ID.klensin-net-utf8 section 2 bullet 3:
| Other than CR, LF, Space (SP, U+0020), and Form Feed (FF,
| U+000C), control characters (U+0000 to U+001F and U+007F
| to U+009F) SHOULD generally be avoided.
For e-mail better s/FF/HT/. Of course you can't reference
this Internet-Draft, but its general idea "stay away from
unnecessary control characters" is fine.