Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Tue, 15 May 2007 18:48 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ho241-0007Am-79; Tue, 15 May 2007 14:48:01 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ho23x-00076y-37 for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 14:47:57 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ho23w-00075J-8q for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 14:47:56 -0400
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ho23u-0004pK-SD for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 14:47:56 -0400
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ho23f-0006cX-Tg for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 20:47:39 +0200
Received: from 1cust82.tnt6.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net ([149.225.18.82]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 May 2007 20:47:39 +0200
Received: from nobody by 1cust82.tnt6.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 May 2007 20:47:39 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: discuss@apps.ietf.org
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Subject: Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 20:46:09 +0200
Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <4649FFF1.196@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <BFE21101-5BC4-45FA-8905-89C2D4A1E593@osafoundation.org> <4648E8CB.3010502@dcrocker.net> <F5C06D62-639B-40CB-803F-6D9E50673768@osafoundation.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust82.tnt6.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> The issue was initially raised by Frank

Hi, a short explanation, initially I hoped that 4234 can be
promoted to STD "as is".  I missed the (now listed) errata
in the "pending errata mbox".

Some months later 4234bis-00 was posted, and if 4234 can't
be promoted as is, then that's an opportunity to address
this (known) LWSP issue.

Just removing it is an idea, but for the reasons stated by
Dave I felt that "just deprecating it" is good enough with
less undesirable side-effects.

After all it's simple to implement LWSP as specified.  But
unfortunately it's also simple to destroy critical white
space in an apparently empty line.  

Sorry for the confusion, I should have checked the pending
errata mbox before the proposal to promote RFC 4234 to STD.

Frank