Re: Editorial styling inconsistencies when referring to Structured Fields

Hi Mark & al.

Il giorno mer 16 feb 2022 alle ore 23:49 Mark Nottingham
<> ha scritto:
> Yeah, that seems like a good idea. I've opened:

SF achieves the goal of associating types to each field part, but it relies
on prose - which is subject to interpretation - to describe relations
between all those parts.

ABNF is limited to syntax, but it's formal and can be used to
label single field parts and compose them... maybe we should identify
some conventions to express those relations with SF too.

An "exercise" in SF could be to express Accept-Encoding
accordingly to
without using abnf:  which would be the result?

Have a nice day,

Received on Thursday, 17 February 2022 14:29:12 UTC