From: Paul Overell (paulo@turnpike.com)
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 - 03:25:13 CST
In message <GrE0LK.GLo@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, Charles Lindsey
<chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes
>In <8IgKdbMocDB@3247.org> list-ietf-wg-apps-usefor@faerber.muc.de
>(Claus Färber) writes:
>
>
>>Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> schrieb/wrote:
>>> 2.4. Syntax
>>> 2.4.1. Syntax Notation
>
>>> This standard uses the Augmented Backus Naur Form described in [RFC
>>> 2234]. Additionally, some syntax rules are given in the form of
>>> schemata from each of which several rules in the [RFC 2234] format
>>> can be derived. For example, the schema
>
>>> {USENET}-header = {USENET}-name ":" 1*SP {USENET}-content
>>> *( [CFWS] ";" ( {USENET}-parameter /
>>> other-parameter ) )
>
>>I believe that's a deviation from RFC 2234 which is not necessary
>>and does not add to the clarity of the specification.
>
>Well that, or something pretty like it, has been in the draft for three
>years now, so why are people suddenly complaining?
>
None of the drafts have ever used the non-RFC2234 compliant syntax of
<USENET>-... or {USENET}-...
Since the draft says
>2.4. Syntax Notation
>
> This standard uses the Augmented Backus Naur Form described in [RFC
> 2234].
It never occurred to me that you would be doing something different.
None of the drafts have ever contained the collected syntax. It was
only when you posted the collect syntax here that I realized that syntax
was incomplete and was instead relying on readers to use your template
scheme to generate the missing productions.
>All I have done is to document what was already being done, and to improve
>the notation a little in response to a comment from Paulo.
>
Regards
-- Paul Overell T U R N P I K E