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

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