On 23/09/2013 17:32, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 9/23/13 10:03 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Many header fields include "[CWFS]" (folding whitespace with
optional comments) instead of "[FWS]". For simplicity of parsing
I would avoid using these, unless needed. But if you choose to
use [CFWS], that would still be fine.
Personally I see no need to allow comments. Keep it simple.
Comments are traditional. Besides, we don't want just anyone able
to write a parser, so we?
Seriously, comments aren't much of a bother to deal with unless
they're in the (like this) middle of something else you're trying
to parse, but on the other hand they rarely add value.
Right. But if they're traditional, what is the traditional syntax to
handle them? ;-)
"[CFWS]" is what you use if you want comment. At least this way there
are plenty of parsers available for them.
