Mnot 816

[mnot]

Proposal for #816.

[kazuho]

Would it be possible to add param-item as an option here?

Considering the fact that list and parameterized list are the two compound types that can use a ; separator, I think it would be beneficial to allow both, for example when defining a new Cache-Control directive that takes a parameterized list as an argument (pretending that Cache-Control is a SH header).

[mnot]

If we added param-item here, it would have the effect of collapsing parameterised lists into lists -- which is possible, I think (if we could define a sane parsing algorithm that could tell the difference).

However, that doesn't seem like what you're asking for. Cache-Control maps to a dictionary; if you allowed a dictionary member to be a parameterised item, what would that look like?

[phluid61]

Doesn't that undo #443 and bring back the atomic-or-complex problem?

[kazuho]

@phluid61 Thanks for pointing that out. OTOH, am I correct in assuming that the reason we handled #443 that way is because we did not know of a good way to resolve the issue?

If that is the case, this might be the correct moment to revisit the issue, now that we are leaning towards having surrounding parens.

[kazuho]

@mnot

However, that doesn't seem like what you're asking for. Cache-Control maps to a dictionary;

Apologies. I should have left my comment where the change for the Dictionary is made.

if you allowed a dictionary member to be a parameterised item, what would that look like?

What I have in mind is something like Cache-Control: no-cache, mydirective arg1=a;arg2=b.

[mnot]

I think what you're asking for there essentially is a Parameterised Dictionary. I'd do it as something like

Example: foo=1, bar=2;a=b;c=d

... but that's just a fairly minor syntactic difference. Could you open an issue for that?