- 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>
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