On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 03:27:16PM -0500, wayne wrote:
If you parse "*all" as the directive, you end up with one of these:
"" "*all" where qualifier is empty and mechanism is error
"*" "all" where qualifier is error and mechanism is known
Best match would be one invalid character "*" and three valid
chars "all". Your way of thinking results in four invalid chars
Ah, ok, I think I understand your point now. In either case, the ABNF
in the spec requires this to be a syntax error, the question is "what
kind of syntax error?".
Indeed. And IMHO it is best to leave no possible ambiguity
in a spec --> I say it is an omission.
Saying either qualifier or mechanism is an arbitrary choice,
but in the example given by me "all" _is_ a valid mechanism.
Your examples (below) are, indeed, other cases where the spec
doesn't work.
This is the bane of most compilers. What is the correct error message
for "al"? or "?al"? or "*al"? or "?-all"?
"Garbage '?-all' found where directive expected" perhaps?
One minor point. You refer to "your way of thinking" and such, but
I'm not Scott and I didn't write Scott's validation tool. If you just
mixed up who ways saying what, no problems. If, instead, I'm confused
or you are trying to make a different point that I've missed, please
let me know.
Well, wasn't it you who asked how the spec was unclear w.r.t.
qualifiers ? If not, sorry, it was indeed a mixup then.
cheers
Alex