From: Jeroen Scheerder (js@cwi.nl)
Date: Thu Apr 20 2000 - 14:22:09 CDT
Jeroen Scheerder (19-04-2000 09:38 +0200) [Re: Syntax validation (was:
Special Characters)]:
>>> Wouldn't it make sense to take the syntax definition for the described
>>> message format and generate a parser (or a parse table) from that
>>> syntax definition?
>>
>> It sounds a very good idea to me.
>
> Ok, I'll see if I can find the time. If there's anybody that just
> happens to have the EBNF syntax definition handily extracted, and/or
> given some thought to the differences between (and conflicts in) the
> different RFCs, that would be a good start for me. Anybody care to
> lend a hand?
A short status update:
- After a bit of research, it seemed useful and feasible
to simply define ABNF syntax, generate a ABNF parser,
and make that ABNF parser's output usable to generate
(instantiate) parsers for ABNF-specified grammars
- An ABNF syntax is shaping up; with some luck, it'll
be there in a week or so. Knock on wood.
- I extracted syntax embedded in the latest USEFOR document
I found (by hand); there are missing bits and pieces to
rip out of the MIME-RFC (probably), that should be modified
in part; and there are some textual remarks in the running
text that look like they should really be part of the syntax.
There's a lot to figure out, and there are some issues pertaining to an
eventual distribution (licensing of research technology I'm employing
for this, and all that).
I'll post a pointer to the full ABNF syntax as soon as there's enough
to comment on. At that point, I'll be looking for volunteers to
proof-read, and shortly after that's been done we should be able to
validate the syntax by creating a suite of snippets containing
interesting bits of USEFOR syntax. Phew.