Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> 3) In S2.7.2 and S2.8.2, XMPP addresses continue to the next line. >>> Do you need LWS at the beginning of the second line to denote >>> continuation? >> >> It's not clear to me how best to represent the line breaks. I will >> inquire of this with the RFC Editor. > > I do not know of other areas, but at least within the SIP set of > documents in the RAI area, we have a convention: SIP header field > values can be folded onto multiple lines if the continuation line > begins with a LWS. This includes URIs as well; i.e., a SIP URI > may continue on the next line if the continuation line starts > with a LWS. > > Now, I am not sure what the general behavior of URIs is with > respect to line folding; at least rfc3986 (URI: Generic Syntax) > appears to be silent on this topic (a quick search of "folding", > "LWS", "continuation" does not yeild anything in that RFC.) Maybe > someone from the Apps area can help.
The line breaks are included in this spec only for the sake of readability. No line breaks are allowed in XMPP IRIs or URIs. Thus the usage here is different from what you might find in SIP headers or email headers as far as I can see. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
