[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[no subject]
Harald penned:
>and you want to make it clear that you are extending a definition, you can
>do it like this:
>
> param =/ "THIRD"
We use this in the first set of RFCs and I think it makes things clearer
when spread out across lots of text or several texts. <More ABNF ignorance
showing> Will this work when extending something that is 'compound'?? For
example, will that work when trying to extend something like this from RFC
2445:
roleparam = "ROLE" "="
("CHAIR" ; Indicates chair of the
; calendar entity
/ "REQ-PARTICIPANT" ; Indicates a participant whose
; participation is required
/ "OPT-PARTICIPANT" ; Indicates a participant whose
; participation is optional
/ "NON-PARTICIPANT" ; Indicates a participant who is
; copied for information
; purposes only
/ x-name ; Experimental role
/ iana-token) ; Other IANA role
; Default is REQ-PARTICIPANT
Should the RFC 2445 have defined it this way instead:
roleparam = "ROLE" "=" roleparamvalue
roleparamvalue =
("CHAIR" ; Indicates chair of the
; calendar entity
/ "REQ-PARTICIPANT" ; Indicates a participant whose
; participation is required
/ "OPT-PARTICIPANT" ; Indicates a participant whose
; participation is optional
/ "NON-PARTICIPANT" ; Indicates a participant who is
; copied for information
; purposes only
/ x-name ; Experimental role
/ iana-token) ; Other IANA role
; Default is REQ-PARTICIPANT
so that we could easily extend it in places like SKiCal?? Or is there a
proper way to extend the former example in SKiCal?
Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn INet: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxx
Iris Associates Phone: 978.392.5335
Westford, MA, USA 01886 FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...