Shortening the draft.

• From: <hallam@etna.ai.mit.edu>
• Date: Thu, 23 May 96 14:23:49 -0400
• To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
• Message-Id: <9605231823.AA03609@Etna.ai.mit.edu>

Hi,

	Just had a thought that might shorten the draft somewhat, how about 
issuing the definition of the ebnf as a separate RFC? This would remove a whole 
section.

	It may be too late for this change but it would be worth thinking about 
for future editions. It is often somewhat irritating reading RFCs where the EBNF 
has "developed" over the years, one has to read the key every time. If we had a 
common referent people could simply say "this grammar is defined in RFC foo.bar". 
This would help encourage consistency across RFCs since the penalty for 
introducing a variation would be having to type a lot of stuff in by hand.


		Phill
	

Received on Thursday, 23 May 1996 11:22:16 UTC