Re: [apps-discuss] Some notes on ABNF notation for separated lists
"Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com> Mon, 13 December 2010 22:18 UTC
Return-Path: <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F1B28C0F3 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:18:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.562
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0lVQuyGDjTdL for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:18:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from csmailgw2.commscope.com (csmailgw2.commscope.com [198.135.207.242]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D223328C0D8 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:18:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.86.20.103] ([10.86.20.103]:28748 "EHLO ACDCE7HC2.commscope.com") by csmailgw2.commscope.com with ESMTP id S515283Ab0LMWUd (ORCPT <rfc822; apps-discuss@ietf.org>); Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:20:33 -0600
Received: from SISPE7HC1.commscope.com (10.97.4.12) by ACDCE7HC2.commscope.com (10.86.20.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.436.0; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:20:33 -0600
Received: from SISPE7MB1.commscope.com ([fe80::9d82:a492:85e3:a293]) by SISPE7HC1.commscope.com ([fe80::8a9:4724:f6bb:3cdf%10]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 06:20:30 +0800
From: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 06:20:29 +0800
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Some notes on ABNF notation for separated lists
Thread-Index: AcuavJGRzX3dwaMWS8GAWOE211tbzAAVpVwA
Message-ID: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03F34FAC7B@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
References: <AANLkTimYKuC+vGiak6VKi3hLxAR_QP9izcewixJ6Ku4Y@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimYKuC+vGiak6VKi3hLxAR_QP9izcewixJ6Ku4Y@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BCN: Meridius 1000 Version 3.4 on csmailgw2.commscope.com
X-BCN-Sender: Martin.Thomson@andrew.com
Cc: "dcrocker@bbiw.net" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Some notes on ABNF notation for separated lists
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 22:18:57 -0000
On 2010-12-13 at 22:54:52, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > Thirdly, it is a topic to discuss about the definition of separator. > However I don't think the form 1*VCHAR is bad or not acceptable for > this occasion. It is obvious that separator can be only visible chars. There are two concerns: - what is acceptable in the ABNF syntax for the describing the separator - what is acceptable in the target grammar for the separator The ABNF syntax needs to be constrained so that the ABNF parser is able to distinguish separator from other parts. This is easy: use the existing ABNF for ABNF constructs to describe these limitations. The target grammar should not be similarly constrained. It should be possible to use any form of separator. The existing <element> rule seems most appropriate. > But I think it would be useful to put the restriction on maximum > amount of chars in separator - maybe 56 is enough. what do you think > about this? Arbitrary constraints on length aren't helpful. --Maritn
- [apps-discuss] Some notes on ABNF notation for se… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [apps-discuss] Some notes on ABNF notation fo… Thomson, Martin