just to reiterate my concern:
A grammar that does not parse the majority of the ABNF that has been
approved after "grammar check" is not, IMHO, a grammar that passes the
"found usable" check for Draft.
Neither does it pass the "interoperable implementations" test, since the
implementations have in fact implemented the "fixed" grammar, not the
grammar in the spec.
(verifying whether or not my concern making sense requires pulling out a
reasonable collection of ABNF from the approved standards and seeing
whether they match the 2234 grammar or not. I haven't done that, and won't
do so before I go on holiday.)
I think we need blank lines in specifications.
But notwithstanding, I think submitting the I-D is a good idea.
--On 7. mars 2005 14:11 -0600 Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:22:41 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
It's too late to submit the ABNF revision as an I-D, until after
Minneapolis, but here is a pointer to the revision:
As noted in the Acknowledgements section, Julian Reschke gets a very
big THANKS! for converting the source to xml. I've tweaked it only a
I believe ABNF is done, which is to say that it is ready for Draft.
1. The revised spec is at the above location, obviously needing formal
i-d submission after this week.
2. All of the outstanding items, concerning the document, pertain to
enhancements, rather than to 'fixing bugs in the spec'. Although most or
all of the enhancements are reasonable, they would require re-cycling at
Proposed. In response to my queries about whether to recycle vs. go to
draft, the overwhelming preference, is for moving to Draft. Hence, no
enhancements to abnf have been done.
So I believe you may continue processing the specification for Draft
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net