On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Sam Johnston <[email protected]> wrote: > Are the commas earning their keep? If they're unnecessary then remove them, > otherwise LGTM. > Sam
I was going to ask the same question. (re: the commas) --peter > > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +1 LGTM >> >> On May 16, 2010 11:29 PM, "James Snell" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Ok, although I seriously dislike having to do additional parsing on >> attribute values, the arguments made so far are valid and parsing hex >> encoded hash digests is -- fortunately -- quite simple to do. So let's >> go with the following syntax... >> >> hash = attribute hash { hash-list } >> hash-list = # ( token ":" 1*HEX ) >> >> The token and HEX productions are defined by RFC2616... >> >> The spec would defer to the existing IANA registry for hash functions >> to define the "tokens" >> >> This would result in a syntax of... >> >> hash="md5:abc...xyz, sha-1:123...567, sha-512:xyz...abc" >> >> This seem acceptable to everyone? >> >> - James >> >> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Sam Johnston <[email protected]> wrote: >> > James, >> > In consideration o... >
