Opened 6 years ago

Closed 6 years ago

Last modified 5 years ago

#541 closed editorial (incorporated)

use of "word" ABNF production

Reported by: julian.reschke@… Owned by:
Priority: normal Milestone: 26
Component: non-specific Severity: In IESG Evaluation
Keywords: Cc:


We should be more consistent in using "word" (= token / quoted-string).

Either remove it, or use it always.

Change History (6)

comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by fielding@…

From [2519]:

(editorial) Remove unnecessary or duplicate ABNF that can be replaced with core rules: word, specials, attribute, value, and quoted-cpair; addresses #541

comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by fielding@…

  • Resolution set to incorporated
  • Status changed from new to closed

comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by julian.reschke@…

From [2520]:

re-add 'special' ABNF production that was removed in [2519]; it's there to make clear what characters are indeed special wrt to tchar (see #541)

comment:4 Changed 6 years ago by julian.reschke@…

From [2521]:

change tracking for [2519] (see #541)

comment:5 Changed 5 years ago by fielding@…

I don't understand why special was restored in [2520]. I know why it was in the spec originally, but it no longer serves that purpose. It isn't used as such in the spec, isn't used in practice (parsers), and isn't useful by external specs.

If the only reason is to explain the set to folks who don't read ABNF, then we should do that using a better comment (or better prose). For example,

     tchar          = "!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&" / "'" / "*"
                    / "+" / "-" / "." / "^" / "_" / "`" / "|" / "~"
                    / DIGIT / ALPHA
                    ; VCHAR, excluding "(),/:;<=>?@[\]{}"

comment:6 Changed 5 years ago by julian.reschke@…

The main reason I restored it is that we had zero discussion before you removed it, and we are past IESG evaluation.

I believe it is useful to have it in the ABNF for clarity; but moving it into a comment works for me as well.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.