tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post9035541439940565035..comments2024-03-28T09:19:27.451+00:00Comments on RevK<sup>®</sup>'s ramblings: Badly written RFCsRevKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-83376083480216154002017-06-29T19:32:43.260+01:002017-06-29T19:32:43.260+01:00The problem here is that RFC 2387 conflicts with t...The problem here is that RFC 2387 conflicts with the general syntax of the Content-Type field in <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2045.txt" rel="nofollow">RFC 2045</a>. RFC 2045 says:<br /><br />parameter := attribute "=" value<br />value := token / quoted-string<br /><br />and states that a tokens cannot include '/'. So an unquoted type parameter containing a '/' is forbidden by RFC 2054. RFC 2045 also says (by example) that a token and quoted-string with the same value are equivalent, which conflicts with RFC2387's requirement that some values be unquoted.<br /><br />I think the upshot of this is that (1) by RFC 2054, everyone should treat a quoted type parameter here the same as an unquoted one and (2) also by RFC 2054, Yahoo! are quite entitled to reject an unquoted parameter containing a '/'. So your approach of always emitting the parameter quoted is the one I'd go for as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-53129487193899399872017-06-26T01:21:57.661+01:002017-06-26T01:21:57.661+01:00The grammar also needs to be rewritten to have an ...The grammar also needs to be rewritten to have an additional rule, something like<br /> type := mimetype / (doublequote mimetype doublequote)<br /> mimetype := maintype "/" subtype<br /><br />and then get rid of the / subtype in the earlier rule.Cecil Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16477035597238561739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-69642938418268960692017-06-25T13:38:15.970+01:002017-06-25T13:38:15.970+01:00I decided, given the the examples quoted the type/...I decided, given the the examples quoted the type/subtype, and it worked with the mail clients we tried, I quoted them...RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-15497223710573041672017-06-25T13:33:45.777+01:002017-06-25T13:33:45.777+01:00Did you put in an evil kludge just for yahoo selec...Did you put in an evil kludge just for yahoo selectively, or were you forced to do it wrongly for everyone?Cecil Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16477035597238561739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-29180192858689609462017-06-24T08:06:30.841+01:002017-06-24T08:06:30.841+01:00Some spec authors are just far too lax. I reported...Some spec authors are just far too lax. I reported many errors, ambiguities and inconsistencies in the specs for CSS to the W3C many years ago, concerning the published grammar for CSS and distribution of whitespace shown in it.Cecil Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16477035597238561739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-65124427281125006532017-06-23T15:42:53.106+01:002017-06-23T15:42:53.106+01:00Although RFC2045 does define type and subtype as w...Although RFC2045 does define type and subtype as well. They're not quoted, however: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2045#section-5.1DThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573629759647894295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-52798104467045064742017-06-23T15:40:25.338+01:002017-06-23T15:40:25.338+01:00But the "value" isn't involved.But the "value" isn't involved.DThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573629759647894295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-7376447860179075092017-06-23T09:54:02.922+01:002017-06-23T09:54:02.922+01:00The [MIME] bit on the end of the line that was mis...The [MIME] bit on the end of the line that was missed at first is a reference to RFC2045 - that's where you're supposed to go for an explanation of the 'value' in this case.Will Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15515078919433985452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-70178854723018849712017-06-23T09:18:00.774+01:002017-06-23T09:18:00.774+01:00I am glad it is not just me that found this an iff...I am glad it is not just me that found this an iffy RFC to be honest.RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-75485655460841531382017-06-23T09:16:20.293+01:002017-06-23T09:16:20.293+01:00P.S. Although I suppose you could argue that the u...P.S. Although I suppose you could argue that the un-specified definition of type and subtype are:<br /><br />type := '"' realtype<br />subtype := realsubtype '"'DThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573629759647894295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-26010842533407048472017-06-23T09:14:48.289+01:002017-06-23T09:14:48.289+01:00I don't see how the definition of value is rel...I don't see how the definition of value is relevant to the type or subtype - it applies to the value in the start-info.<br /><br />As type and subtype seem to be undefined (unless they're defined in a reference somewhere), it does appear to allow either type="text"/"html" or type=text/html, but not type="text/html".DThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573629759647894295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-55397325570528817312017-06-22T20:53:01.470+01:002017-06-22T20:53:01.470+01:00Even so, thanks for pointing out my omission.Even so, thanks for pointing out my omission.RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-3845561691581497702017-06-22T20:52:36.559+01:002017-06-22T20:52:36.559+01:00Also it talks of parameter value, there is "v...Also it talks of parameter value, there is "value" in that syntax. I do not see what tells us type "/' subtype is in fact a parameter value. Maybe I am missing that too.RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-79969343610880990262017-06-22T20:51:06.379+01:002017-06-22T20:51:06.379+01:00Thanks, interesting.
Even do, it means yahoo recru...Thanks, interesting.<br />Even do, it means yahoo recruiting the quoting is wrong to do so.RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-40489237061577966102017-06-22T20:49:12.827+01:002017-06-22T20:49:12.827+01:00This section spans a page. You missed the bit on t...This section spans a page. You missed the bit on the next page, which reads, in part, edited for line length:<br /><br /> value := token / quoted-string<br /> ; value cannot begin with "<"<br /><br /> Note that the parameter values will usually require quoting.<br /><br />I note that only cids, i.e. message-ids, should be unquoted, because you have to escape any value that contains a slash, and most content-types contain a slash.Nick Alcockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06590610308528769844noreply@blogger.com