Re: #1132: Allowing IP addresses as path-identiites - Poll result

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <4328CC5C.276E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>Charles Lindsey wrote:

>> my syntax severely limited where [FWS] was allowed
>> (essentially between things added by one site). If you
>> want to relax that, then I shall have to take care it
>> does not arise inside a "!!".

>I've no problem with "!" [FWS] "!" if that allows for a
>syntax where we get this concept:

No, I would not like that. These Path headers, as folded, are going to be
read by humans. If they see a single "!" at the end of a line, or at the
start of a following line, then they will be happy and think they
understand it (not noticing that a line ending with "!" was immediately
followed by another line beginning with "!"). If we are going to use the
"!!" notation, then it needs to stick out like a sore thumb, so that
everybody reading the header will easily spot it.

I covered it in my version by disallowing [FWS] before a "!" (assuming it
would be a good practice to always split lines in a comsistent and
standard way). But if people want to permit [FWS] either before or after a
"!", then I am sure that a grammar can still be written that will prevent
FWS in the middle of a "!!". Opinions on whether we want to allow [FWS] on
either side of a "!"?

-- 
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      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