From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Fri May 16 2003 - 10:54:07 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <3EBFA5C8.9080704@Sonietta.blilly.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>>For clarity, my point was not that any "assistance" is merely desirable.
>>It is that if Subject is to be redefined as something other than
>>unstructured -- and the "Re: " hack does exactly that -- then it
>>is *necessary* that the ABNF clearly indicates the structure.
>
>
> No, there is always the choice between describing it syntactically and
> describing it by verbiage.
There will be syntax at least in the form of ABNF. Any verbiage must
be consistent with that ABNF and vice versa.
>Anyway, you will see that my latest proposal
> contains both options, so you can all discuss which you prefer.
It does not include what was discussed, namely elimination of
the "Re: " hack.
>>It is
>>unreasonable to knowingly produce a document which is internally
>>inconsistent, and ABNF that says something different from the
>>text is a gross inconsistency if it is unnecessary
>
>
> Sure, but nobody is suggesting that the text should be inconsistent with
> the ABNF. It just needs to be clear in what it is or is not prescribing.
So you say, and then you contradict yourself by immediately suggesting
reference to ABNF which says exactly the opposite of the draft text:
> Yes, and that is exactly how it is done in the present draft. Each header
> is provided with an ABNF syntax. But, for those headers which, apart from
> that SP, are essentially the same as their RFC 2822 counterparts, the ABNF
> then immediately points you back to the relevant RFC 2822 syntax.
Aside from the issue of RFC 2822 obs-phrase and 2822's MUST NOT generate
vs. your apparently arbitrary (and w/o prior discussion) change of that
to the contradictory SHOULD NOT, there are *internal* inconsistencies in
the draft.
Example of contradiction:
The From-header contains the email address(es), possibly including
the full name(s), of the article's poster(s). The content syntax
makes use of syntax defined in [RFC 2822].
header =/ From-header
From-header = "From" ":" SP From-content
From-content = mailbox-list
Assuming that "mailbox-list" refers to the 2822 production (it's not in
the list of imported productions in sect. 2.4), that most certainly does
not incorporate the must-have-non-whitespace-content-on-initial-field-line
rule since mailbox-list provides for line folding at its start. I.e. the
ABNF states that
v- SP here
From:
=?Extended_UNIX_Code_Packed_Format_for_Japanese*cel-gaulish?q?a?=
<a@b.com>
is perfectly legal, while the verbiage says it is not. That is an inconsistency
which can be easily corrected. But first we need to establish whether we're trying
to produce an incompatible format or one which is compatible with RFC 2822 and MIME.