This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author orsenthil
Recipients bernie9998, ezio.melotti, orsenthil, osvenskan, petri.lehtinen, terry.reedy
Date 2011-10-31.00:01:49
SpamBayes Score 2.501165e-07
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1320019309.85.0.424736960495.issue13281@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I agree with your interpretation of the RFC. The parsing rules do not specify any provision for inclusion of blank lines "within" the records.

However, I find that inclusion is no harm either. I checked that with a robots.txt parser (Google webmaster tools) and presented the last.fm's robots.txt file which had blank line within records. As expected, it did not crib. 

I would say that we can be lenient on this front and the question would if we allow, would it break any parsing rules? I think, no.

The patch does not break any tests, but a new test should be added to reflect this situation. 

I don't have a strong opinion on having a strict=(True|False) for the blank line accommodation within records(only). I think, it is better we don't add a new parameter and just be lenient.
History
Date User Action Args
2011-10-31 00:01:49orsenthilsetrecipients: + orsenthil, terry.reedy, osvenskan, ezio.melotti, bernie9998, petri.lehtinen
2011-10-31 00:01:49orsenthilsetmessageid: <1320019309.85.0.424736960495.issue13281@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2011-10-31 00:01:49orsenthillinkissue13281 messages
2011-10-31 00:01:49orsenthilcreate