Re: Syntax

Frank Ellermann <> Wed, 10 January 2007 21:10 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4kih-0002ZL-5y; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:10:51 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4kig-0002ZB-0q for; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:10:50 -0500
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4kie-0000P2-DY for; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:10:50 -0500
Received: from list by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H4kiI-0000lU-7A for; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:10:27 +0100
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <>; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:10:26 +0100
Received: from nobody by with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <>; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:10:26 +0100
From: Frank Ellermann <>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:09:05 +0100
Organization: <URL:>
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f
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: <>, <>

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)

>> 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.

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_

> 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.


Cosmogol mailing list