Re: [salud] New version of the ABNF-syntax

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 3/9/13 12:51 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> [as an individual]
>
> The current syntax is:
>
>        alert-URN         = "urn:alert:" alert-identifier
>        alert-identifier  = alert-category ":" alert-indication
>        alert-category    = alert-name
>        alert-indication  = alert-name *(":" alert-name)
>        alert-name        = alert-label / private-name
>
> One source of difficulty I am having is that I would like a
> nonterminal that means "an <alert-name> that is part of an
> <alert-indication> (but not an <alert-category>".  I have been
> incorrectly using the term <alert-indication> for this nonterminal.
>
> There are alternative ways to provide this nonterminal.  We could
> introduce a new nonterminal:
>
>        alert-URN         = "urn:alert:" alert-identifier
>        alert-identifier  = alert-category ":" alert-indication
>        alert-category    = alert-name
>        alert-indication  = xxx *(":" xxx)
>        xxx               = alert-name
>        alert-name        = alert-label / private-name
>
> Or we could change the meaning of alert-indication:
>
>        alert-URN         = "urn:alert:" alert-identifier
>        alert-identifier  = alert-category ":" alert-indication *(":" alert-indication)
>        alert-category    = alert-name
>        alert-indication  = alert-name
>        alert-name        = alert-label / private-name
>
> But I do not know what change would cause the fewest problems with the
> rest of the draft text.

If there is no need to reference the old meaning of alert-indication 
then I prefer the 2nd. Else the first is fine (but with something more 
mnemonic than xxx.)

	Thanks,
	Paul