[rfc-i] v3imp #8 Fragment tagging on sourcecode

julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke) Sun, 25 January 2015 08:54 UTC

From: "julian.reschke at gmx.de"
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 09:54:40 +0100
Subject: [rfc-i] v3imp #8 Fragment tagging on sourcecode
In-Reply-To: <54C3C6A3.6080003@seantek.com>
References: <54C20F92.4090400@seantek.com> <54C232FC.1000604@gmx.de> <54C275BC.1040905@alum.mit.edu> <20150123175511.GI2350@localhost> <54C28E3F.4040901@alum.mit.edu> <E378C876-5217-4274-86B6-1DBFB653DE24@vpnc.org> <54C29891.6040101@alum.mit.edu> <54C3576A.9030206@greenbytes.de> <54C3BE06.8010707@alum.mit.edu> <54C3C6A3.6080003@seantek.com>
Message-ID: <54C4AF50.1000102@gmx.de>

On 2015-01-24 17:21, Sean Leonard wrote:
> ...
> -?
>
> Like Paul I am ambivalent.
>
> First of all there is no such thing as "ABNF modules" yet--only ABNF
> grammar (combined with specification text). I recognize this
> conversation is trending to creating them.
>
> To use Julian's language, are there "concrete examples" of a discrete
> RFC containing "independent ABNF modules"? Unless you have a different
> definition, I am going with "independent ABNF modules" means ABNF
> definitions that are mutually conflicting, so that implementation of one
> necessarily precludes implementation of the other.

What I meant is something else.

RFC 7230, for instance has an ABNF that describes the message format. In 
addition, it has multiple tiny ABNFs that describe header field *value* 
syntax. The latter are not referenced anywhere, so they constitute 
independent modules, although they re-use parts from other definitions.

> ...


Best regards, Julian