Re: Syntax

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 10 January 2007 21:44 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4lEs-0004Qw-Di; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:44:06 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4lEq-0004Qo-PB for cosmogol@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:44:04 -0500
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4lEo-0004fF-T0 for cosmogol@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:44:04 -0500
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2007 21:44:01 -0000
Received: from p508F8EAB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.178.22]) [80.143.142.171] by mail.gmx.net (mp053) with SMTP; 10 Jan 2007 22:44:01 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
Message-ID: <45A55E1E.2080801@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:43:58 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <45A129E9.50905@gmx.de> <20070107205255.GA14621@sources.org> <45A20F62.9060306@gmx.de> <20070108204618.GA29407@sources.org> <20070109000704.GB17340@finch-staff-1.thus.net> <20070109081753.GA1875@nic.fr> <20070110055950.GA5608@finch-staff-1.thus.net> <45A512E8.25CC@xyzzy.claranet.de> <45A514D6.7030000@gmx.de> <45A555F1.3286@xyzzy.claranet.de>
In-Reply-To: <45A555F1.3286@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c
Cc: cosmogol@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Syntax
X-BeenThere: cosmogol@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: DIscussion on state machine specification in IETF protocols <cosmogol.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmogol>, <mailto:cosmogol-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/cosmogol>
List-Post: <mailto:cosmogol@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cosmogol-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmogol>, <mailto:cosmogol-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: cosmogol-bounces@ietf.org

Frank Ellermann schrieb:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>  
>> What does this have to do with XML 1.1? Or with XML at all?
> 
> XML 1.1 and 1.0 differ wrt to attribute names and other identifiers.
> IIRC, I'm too lazy to check this now (but if you want me I'd try)

XML 1.1 has extended the set of name characters, but it included many 
non-ASCII characters in XML 1.0 already. So the situation hasn't changed 
significantly.

>>> It should work with any parser on any platform, including MS DOS
>>> before 3.2 or the BASIC interpreter written by Bill Gates 198?
>>> under CP/M. :-(
>  
>> Where did you get that requirement from?
> 
> Looking at my own OS/2 box without UTF-8 I got an old gawk and 
> REXX to implement this.  We'd want to transform the state machines
> into other languages for presentation etc., for that we need KISS,
> and no obscure escape mechanisms requiring native Unicode support.

Well. Do you have a C compiler? I'm sure there are decent UTF-8 libs, 
such as in expat. It should compile on your OS/2 box, it sure did 
compile on my Atari TT seven years ago.

> On GMaNe the descricption for this list is:
> "About languages for state machines in RFCs, especially Cosmogol".
> 
> RFCs are plain text US ASCII at the moment, and they always were.
> At some point in time that will change, but not _here_ and _now_

But that's not for us to decide. I simply think that inventing new 
notations without taking care of non-ASCII characters is a good idea.

>> if the language allows textual content (such as comments), it 
>> should better handle non-ASCII characters
> 
> Together with ABNF and similar constructs.  In the same way as
> it's done there.  Not in some ad hoc backslash notation borrowed
>>from C, or the &#x103456 in RFC 4646, we'd want exactly the same
> solution as for among others ABNF comments.  Without a crystal
> ball we can't tell what this will be - I guess it won't be the
> C or RFC 4646 notation, but native UTF-8.

I think that what I proposed *was* native UTF-8.

Best regards, Julian



_______________________________________________
Cosmogol mailing list
Cosmogol@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmogol