From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 - 05:28:06 CST
In <VmhkfRD59Na8QAx+@pillar.turnpike.com> Paul Overell <paulo@turnpike.com> writes:
>None of the drafts have ever used the non-RFC2234 compliant syntax of=20
><USENET>-... or {USENET}-...
No, but they have all contained the same syntax with USENET-... . If all
you are worried about is my use of '{' and '}', then I can easily take
them out. It won't change anything - just make it slightly harder for
people to see what is a 'template' and what is not. It won't be any more
of less compliant with RFC 2234 (i.e. it will still be an extension of
it).
>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=20
>only when you posted the collect syntax here that I realized that syntax=20
>was incomplete and was instead relying on readers to use your template=20
>scheme to generate the missing productions.
The collected syntax didn't change anything (except that I took the
opportunity to enclose the templates inside some brackets, since that
seemed like a good idea). The basic mechanism is as it has always been.
If people really want to change that basic mechanism at this late stage,
then I suppose we will have to discuss it.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5