Re: [apps-discuss] draft-yevstifeyev-abnf-separated-lists-01.txt

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

Hello all,

2010/12/6, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-abnf-separated-lists/
>>
>> Almost all comments and suggestions were taken
>> into account. Among other:
>> -updated ABNF;
>> -added Examples section;
>> -added Acknowledgments section;
>> -other minor changes.
>
> The changes to the ABNF are good, and they resolve my concerns from -00.
>
> I note a remaining problem with the ABNF that I missed the first time:
>
>    n^(a)m element = ( n(*LWS element) *o(*LWS a *LWS element))
>
> The first clause on the right is incorrect: it specifies <n>
> occurrences of <element> with *no* <a> between them.  As you add that,
> you need to make sure to get the cases where n=0 and n=1 correct, as
> well as where n=m (I think that last one is already OK).
Maybe such constrution should be used:
n^(a)m element = ( n(*LWS element *LWS a) *o(*LWS a *LWS element) )
However this construction does not solve the problem when only
REQUIRED amount of elements are use as <a> will be used after the last
element.
>
> This points out the difficulty of getting such a general list
> construct defined correctly, and shows why it was removed.
>
> I agree with Tony that if you can't include examples of how we should
> have had this before, it'll be hard to convince the community and the
> IESG that it's needed now.  We can always come up with things that
> *might* be useful, but part of the challenge is keeping the language
> as simple as possible (and no simpler).
>
The construction will be used while definig the HTTP headers which
contain the list of element. Now I am thinking about some other
examples.
> Barry
>