[rfc-i] ABNF (RFC2234) vs HTTP's augmented BNF syntax (RFC822
braden at ISI.EDU
Sun Feb 13 11:01:05 PST 2005
*> So the summary would be that it's ok to invoke the "implied LWS" rule
*> (after all, it doesn't affect the ABNF syntax, just its meaning in the
*> spec), but one should stay away from defining extensions (such as
*> RFC2616 does to RFC822)?
Well, I do not mean to say that this is necessarily the last word on
the subject, but at this point, the conservative ("standards-based")
approach you outline does seem to have significant advantages.
More information about the rfc-interest