Re: Syntax

On a somewhat related note, we often need to do ladder diagrams (or  
call flows, or interactions diagrams depending on your terminology)   
in IETF drafts - I know that this is separate from FSM but they are  
equally needed.

On Jan 7, 2007, at 9:12 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Hi,
>
> here are a few thoughts regarding the syntax:
>
> 1) Although the language is designed to be used in IDs and RFCs,  
> restricting it to ASCII here is IMHO a very bad idea. After all,  
> you may want to use it for other specifications, and the IETF may  
> lift the current restrictions at some point of time. I would  
> suggest to require a specific text encoding such as UTF-8, and try  
> to make the definitions for the character set of identifiers much  
> something well understood (such as XML 1.0).
>
> 2) At a later point, it would be great if the format would define  
> and register a mime type (for instance, we would want that for easy  
> inclusion into RFC2629 artwork).
>
> 3) Although a "compact" syntax is great for readability, an  
> alternate syntax in XML would be good for usage within XML tool  
> chains. I've written several XSLTs targeting GraphViz in the past,  
> and getting escaping right can be a nightmare. Having a separate  
> XML based input format would make things much easier (if there's  
> interest in that, I'll happily contribute).
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cosmogol mailing list
> Cosmogol@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmogol

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