From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon May 06 2002 - 11:11:18 CDT
In <200205051609.36823@sendmail.mutz.com> Marc Mutz <mutz@kde.org> writes:
>> >This should probably be "end in optional WS", since allowing FWS here
>> > means allowing lines containing only WS in the header.
>>
>> No, there is wording in 4.2.3 to cover that situation. There is similar
>> wording in RFC 2822.
>I understand so much. I just thought it might me nice to have grammar and
>prose agree on it.
It is in general next-to-impossible to make a grammar that will avoid
these cases. Moreover, most header-contents have [CFWS] rather than [FWS]
at the end, and you need that to allow comments (even the [FWS] is needed
to allow trailing spaces which are not illegal, however much we dislike
them). So, for consistency with other headers, and with RFC 2822, and to
allow the simple invariant stated in 4.2.3, it is better to leave that
[FWS] in.
Having said that, I would still like to review the precise wording in
4.2.3, as part of my final nit-picking cleanup.
-- 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