Re: progress on BNF conversion

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2007, at 7:34 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> in the spirit of making small incremental steps, I'd like to propose 
>> that we first fix the BNF so that it actually becomes parseable with a 
>> parser written for the 822/2616 BNF format.
> I don't understand.  That is a lot harder than just replacing with
> the standard ABNF.  Note that HTTP is the basis for a hundred or so
> other IETF standards track specifications, so the pressure to update
> the ABNF is greater than the sum of all other 2616 issues.

Seems there's a misunderstanding here.

All the issues I listed need to be resolved if we move to the RFC4234 
format anyway.

What would be left then would be:

- replacing "|" by "/"

- deciding what to do with #element and 1#element (keep this ABNF 
extension or expand the rules (*))

- deciding about implicit LWS

So I was just trying to break this down into smaller chunks...

Best regards, Julian

(*) I know have got a hack for BillF's ABNF parser automating that in 
case we want to do that.

Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 18:30:12 UTC