You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 29, 2019. It is now read-only.
if you remove the pct-encoded from param-char then method-specific-id appears to be equivalent to method-specific-id.
method-specific-id = *idchar *( ":" *idchar )
this line makes the 2 equivalent because method-specific-id does include ":" inside of it with 0 or more idchars.
hence a valid method-specific-id could be:
::::
param-char is much easier to read as it uses Alternatives to describe it's strings.
method-specific-id's sequence group seems like an artifact from when param-char and method-specific-id differed or perhaps is reserved for future use if it becomes necessary to make it different from param-char.
Basically we could define one rule for both method-specific-id and param-char and then specify that param-char should be pct-encoded.
additionally idchar is inconsistently named because the other ABNF rules are snake-case.
I guess it feels like idchar and param-char are/were supposed to be different strings, but it was generalized to the point that the two are effectively identical.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
if you remove the pct-encoded from param-char then method-specific-id appears to be equivalent to method-specific-id.
this line makes the 2 equivalent because method-specific-id does include ":" inside of it with 0 or more idchars.
hence a valid method-specific-id could be:
::::
Basically we could define one rule for both method-specific-id and param-char and then specify that param-char should be pct-encoded.
additionally idchar is inconsistently named because the other ABNF rules are snake-case.
I guess it feels like idchar and param-char are/were supposed to be different strings, but it was generalized to the point that the two are effectively identical.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: