W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

RE: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates

From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 06:51:08 -0500
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, '"Martin J. Dürst"' <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000601c9d22e$c92e8ed0$5b8bac70$@org>
Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> > That seems to be backward. Wouldn't the comments be helpful in the
> > collected ABNF, too?
> The collected ABNF is produced by an ABNF parser (Bill Fenner's), by
> serializing the rule objects it generates. Thus, it doesn't have the
> comments anymore.

If the readability of the collected ABNF were a goal, then the comments
would be included, and the #rule extensions would be preserved.

Having the collected ABNF split into multiple parts defeats the purpose of
having a collected ABNF. Given the availability of Bill Fenner's tool, and
the fact that the appendicies are generated from that tool, I don't see why
the collected ABNF appendices need to be included anymore. A single,
plain-text (no IETF boilerplate like headers/footers) file that gathers all
the productions from all documents (including all parts of HTTPbis, RFC3986,
etc.) would be a much more useful deliverable.

In the event that Appendix D differs materially from the grammar in the rest
of the document, which part of the document takes precedence? Is Appendix D
non-normative? It looks like all the appendices are non-normative except
maybe the glossary.

- Brian
Received on Monday, 11 May 2009 11:51:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:19 UTC