Re: Syntax

Julian Reschke <> Wed, 10 January 2007 21:44 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4lEs-0004Qw-Di; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:44:06 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4lEq-0004Qo-PB for; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:44:04 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4lEo-0004fF-T0 for; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:44:04 -0500
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2007 21:44:01 -0000
Received: from (EHLO []) [] by (mp053) with SMTP; 10 Jan 2007 22:44:01 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:43:58 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv: Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Frank Ellermann <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
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
Subject: Re: Syntax
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: DIscussion on state machine specification in IETF protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

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 

>>> 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