Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sieve-variables-04.txt

[Kjetil Torgrim Homme <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 10:51 -0700, Ned Freed wrote:
> Basic idea looks good, however, a couple of typos have crept in. First, the
> syntax at the beginning of 4.1 fails to list the two new modifiers.

doh!  thanks.

> Second, the plain text draft now says:
> 
> 4.1.2.1.  Modifier ":quotewildcard"
> 
>    Every character with special meaning for :matches ("*", "?" and " is
>    prefixed with "

doh! it was supposed to say:

        Every character with special meaning for :matches ("*", "?" and
        "\") is prefixed with "\" in the expansion.

> 4.1.2.2.  Modifier ":quoteregex"
> 
>    Every character with special meaning for :regex (".", "*", "?" etc.)
>    is prefixed with "
> 
> I assume you meant '"\"' and not '"'. Looks like you need to apply some quoting
> to the draft source...

yeah, I always forget that \ must be written \e in roff.

> The lack of a full list of regex specials is a bit awkward here, but I
> guess I can live with it.

there is no ABNF in [REGEX] to refer to, and a full list will be prone
to inaccuracies.  not that I expect any changes to the syntax allowed by
it, but ...

> Finally, the section ends with "Using two or more modifiers of the same
> precedence is a syntax error.". This isn't quite right: These aren't syntax
> errors. How about saying "It is an error to use two or more modifiers of the
> same precedence in a single SET operation" or something similar.

thanks.  I used "command" rather than "operation" to avoid using new
terminology.

I also downgraded refering to an unknown namespace to just an "error"
rather than a "syntax error".

> > I did not remove the text about interaction with regex yet.  I feel the
> > text belongs in the variables draft, so if it is procedurally possible,
> > I prefer it stays there rather than move into the regex draft.
> 
> I also would like to keep the text here if possible.

I guess we'll decide this in Paris?
-- 
Kjetil T.