El Sábado, 29 de Marzo de 2008, Valentin Nechayev escribió: > Your example > (b) is too radical, it's better to compare with something like: > > === c) > INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0 > From : alice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; tag=1 > To : white rabbit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; tag=2 > i : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > === > > which isn't much worse than non-spaced form.
Sure it's not so bad, but for example I know some SIP devices/softphones that fail parsing a message with SP / HTAB between header field name and COLON. Probably no SIP implementation adds unnecesary SP / HTAB after COLON, so most of them can interoperate, but the risk is there. > > Ok, I understand that SIP was born from HTTP and so, but anyway I hope in > > a future SIP/X.0 appears eliminating so many and innecesary permissive > > syntax. > > If to invent such, this already won't be text format Why not? I like SIP format, it's human readable (AFAIK one of its success cause) but IMHO a no so much flexible grammar could be nicer (no so much space allowed, no line folding... ) just it, I wouldn't like to see a binary format ;) Thanks a lot for your comment and explanation. Best regards. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
