Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-04.txt

Michael Haardt <michael@freenet-ag.de> Fri, 22 July 2005 08:04 UTC

Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:03:53 +0200
From: Michael Haardt <michael@freenet-ag.de>
To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-04.txt
Message-ID: <20050722080353.GB9588@nostromo.freenet-ag.de>
References: <E1DvWPE-0001o1-Ca@nostromo.freenet-ag.de> <42DFD537.6070904@psaux.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <42DFD537.6070904@psaux.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 10:02:47AM -0700, Tim Showalter wrote:
> Michael Haardt wrote:
> >Section 1.1:
> >
> >   Each section on a command (test, action, or control) has a line
> >   labeled "Syntax:".  This line describes the syntax of the command,
> >   including its name and its arguments.
> >
> >If this line described syntax, its contents would be listed in the
> >grammar.  There is a number of RFCs that list specific rules throughout
> >the document, explaining them, and all of them are listed together in
> >the full grammar.  That's _not_ the case for Sieve.
> 
> You're right.  The word "Syntax" should be replaced by "Usage" or 
> something.  I don't think "Semantics" is right, either.

"Usage" sounds much better indeed.

Michael

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-04.txt Internet-Drafts
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-04.txt Michael Haardt
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-04.txt Tim Showalter
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-04.txt Ned Freed
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-04.txt Michael Haardt
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-04.txt Michael Haardt
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-04.txt Philip Guenther