W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: progress on BNF conversion

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:39:28 +0100
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <fheqg9$hq8$1@ger.gmane.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:
 
> Sure. But can we get rid of that?

Dunno, I'd certainly love to get rid of it.  That's a question
for the "implementation and interoperability report".  If it
does not really work in practice you could be free to drop it.

>> on the SASL list it was tested with a 2831bis draft (RFC 2831
>> as a variant of 2617 inherited the "old" syntax with the #-rule)
 
> And kept it. Interesting data point.

Actually the SASL folks decided to move RFC 2831 to historic 
soon after they saw the expanded ABNF for 2831bis, but there
were other reasons for this decision.  And at that point in
time I didn't know that 2831 md5-sess and 2617 md5-sess might
be incompatible (the fact is hidden in an 2617 erratum).

> Looking at a version of the HTTP grammar which expands the
> # rule, I must say it's not pretty :-).

Truth in advertising.  Compare
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sasl/2758>
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sasl/2759>
It's not _too_ ugly if you're forced to keep it.

 Frank
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 12:44:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:23 GMT