On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 20:03 +0100, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > El Miércoles, 18 de Febrero de 2009, Dale Worley escribió: > > On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 23:42 +0100, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > > > El Martes, 17 de Febrero de 2009, Dale Worley escribió: > > > > On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 22:28 +0100, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > > > > > > > > This is yet another place in the BNF where what needs to be done is > > > > determined by the parameter name. This case is more complex than > > > > usual, in that the parameter name determines whether it is an > > > > accept-param (and binds to media-range as part of accept-range), or an > > > > m-parameter (and binds to "m-type SLASH m-subtype" as part of > > > > media-range. > > > > > > The problem is that both 'accept-param' and 'm-parameter' accept any > > > custom parameter (token EQUAL token). > > > > But in any particular implementation, there will be no token that is an > > understood custom parameter for both accept-param and m-parameter. > > > > Dale > > Yes, but for example: > > Accept: application/sdp;paramX=qwe > > "paramX=qwe" can be an 'accept-param' or 'm-parameter', no way to distinguish > between them.
If your implementation accepts "paramX" as an accept-param, it is one. If it accepts "paramX" as an m-parameter, it is one. If it accepts it as neither, it discards the parameter. Not pretty, but it works. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
