Re: Parsing the Injection-Info: header field

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <> Julien ÉLIE <julien@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>I understand that RFC 2045 now extends the syntax of RFC 5322 (instead
>of RFC 822).

How can that possibly be so, since it was written umpteen years earlier?
Anything that "extended RFC 5322 would have to be written _after_ that.

RFC 2045, and its relations, provides syntax for many new header fields.
>From reading RFC 2045 and RFC 822, you can deduce *exactly* where CFWS is
allowed. If RFC were to be re-written (a highly desirable thing BTW), then
if would redefine its syntax with explicite CFWS, presumably in exactly
the same places as now, unless it chose to declare some of them to be
obsolete as 5322 has done.

It is clear that, according to RFC 2045, CFWS is allowed on both sides of
the '=' in a <parameter> (and why shouldn't it?). And, just to make sure, I
checked my interpretation with Keith Moore before writing the original
version of the paragraph which you quoted.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            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