On 2017-09-13 16:07, Michael Richardson wrote:
While googling for the syntax for Content-Type (if there are multiple paramaters how are they seperated? The answer is ;), I came up with: https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1341/4_Content-Type.html as a top-hit. I guess it's an expansion of rfc1341 by the URL. But there are no navigation links on the page, and truncating to /Protocols/rfc1341 didn't give me anything. And, well, it's a really really old obsoleted RFC. (with a slightly different ABNF to newer documents. I didn't immediately notice/understand the *[] part around parameter, although it's obvious in hindsight) In particular, it doesn't easily lead the reader to find the original RFC1341 in anyway, and perhaps it actually violates the IETF copyright. I don't so much care (personally...) if the copyright is violated, more I care that the RFC-editor obsoleted-by information is not clear to the reader and no obvious way from that page to find the original document. Can we get w3c to something different here?
We asked when obsoleting 2616 (for which there are lots of links to the W3 "version")... I believe the issue is that they neither want to remove nor modify their copies. (cc'ing Yves).
I think that we now have anchors links to sections of RFCs, although perhaps not on the rfc-editor.org copy as yet. (cf: flame war in tools-discuss which I kill-filled) I eventually found the definition via RFC5822, referencing to RFC4021, and hence to RFC2045 section 5.1. ...
FWIW, if you're looking for the syntax of Content-Type as HTTP header field, the right answer would be RFC 7231.
To find the *registered* definition of any MIME/HTTP header field, see <https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-headers.xhtml>.
Best regards, Julian