From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Mar 05 2002 - 05:28:56 CST
In <20020304213055.GI25816@finch-staff-1.demon.net> "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net> writes:
>Charles Lindsey said:
>> other-parameter = attribute "=" value
>> attribute = usenet-token / iana-token / x-token
>> usenet-token = <A token defined in this standard for
>> use in conjunction with a specific
>> USENET-parameter>
>> iana-token = <a token defined in an experimental
>> or standards-track RFC and registered
>> with IANA>
>> x-token = [CFWS] "x-" token-core [CFWS]
>> token = [CFWS] token-core [CFWS]
>This still isn't clear. Are "usenet-token" and "iana-token" syntactically
>equal to a token ? Unless that's answered properly, you can't be sure whether
>CFWS is allowed.
Yes, there is still a problem to be addressed in that area. But I am
waiting to see if the current discussion in ietf-822 turns up anything
useful before deciding which way to jump.
>> 5.1. Date
>>
>> Date-content = date-time
>Why isn't date-time defined here ?
Like it says: "The content syntax makes use of syntax defined in [RFC
2822]". It has been general policy throughout the draft not to repeat
syntax defined eslewhere (except for some very basic and frequently used
stuff in 2.4.3).
I have however, reproduced all the borrowed syntax in the Collected
Syntax Appendix, where it is carefully identified as such.
>> 5.3. Message-ID
>>
>Similarly, where's msg-id ?
Ditto.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5