On Feb 22, 19:53, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
}I wrote:
} There's two spaces after Summary:. Should only be one.
} That's not the problem. Any number of spaces is permitted after a
} header field's tag. The problem was that the "blank" line between the
} main and auxiliary headers wasn't actually blank; it had a space on
} it.
The second space after the colon is illegal according to RFC1036. Or, does
that not apply to Summary lines?
I can't find anything in RFC 1036 that explicitly states that colons
must be followed by exactly one space.
Yes, there are a couple of places where it says that "a blank" should
follow the colon, but as far as I can tell, it never comes right out
and says that *exactly* one blank must follow the colon. Furthermore,
since it doesn't have a table of syntax rules like RFC 822 does, it
doesn't really define precisely what is meant by "a blank". Do you
have specific text in the RFC in mind that I'm missing?
I know of no News software that will reject postings because they have
header fields with more than one space after the colon. I don't think
even INN is that picky, and it holds the current record for pickiness
:-). If I'm wrong, of course, please correct me. Personally, I think
it would be a bad thing to enforce a requirement of a exactly one
space after the colon.
Bringing this back to the subject of FAQ maintenance.... Even if
you're right that a Summary field with more than one space after the
colon would be rejected by News software, I'm fairly certain that it
would *not* be rejected by the FAQ server, and I wrote the FAQ server,
so I should know :-). All the Perl code I've ever written to parse
headers (and the FAQ server is written in Perl) uses \s+ after the
colon.
jik
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved