> > directive ::= "#" type "/" subtype
> > 0*(";" attribute "=" value)
> > [ "(" comment ")" ]
> > [ "<" id ">" ]
> > [ "[" description "]" ]
> > [ filename ]
> > EOL
> > [ "#" extension-field ]
> >
> > where extension-field just can't look like a directive.
>
> Like this?
>
> extension-field ::= "Content-" fieldname ":"
> attribute [ "=" value ]
> 0*(";" attribute [ "=" value ])
>
> #application/pdf; <>[ Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) v1.2 ] /tmp/foo.pd
> f
> #Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="foo.pdf"
Yes for the example, no for the grammar, although I got the grammar I wrote
wrong anyway. :) Firstly, how does the example look to you? The colon
isn't really necessary, and keep in mind that the line might be immediately
followed by another directive.
Regarding your grammar, I think it's wrong as a general RFC2045 grammar
because the value of the field can be any text, no? It's the right grammar
for Content-Disposition though.
Another reason I suggested this grammar is that I think the parsing of
it will be quite easy to fit into the existing mhbuildsbr.c code.
Cheers,
- Joel
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
