[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ABNF to Draft -- pending issues

2005-03-07 20:53:07


thanks for generating the real data!

I withdraw my objections at this time.

(part of the confusion is because I've done a lousy job of keeping versions of my parser straight; I believe that the parser I'm currently using for myself implements the blank-line fix; I don't know what versions are "out there", and don't even know how to tell you to figure out which version they are.)

--On 7. mars 2005 19:00 -0600 Bill Fenner 
<fenner(_at_)research(_dot_)att(_dot_)com> wrote:


  I used my ABNF extractor on RFCs 3000-3999, resulting
in 128 ABNF documents.  I parsed them with both your parser (from and mine.  Your parser
presumably implements the rules you think should exist; mine implements
exactly RFC2234 (modulo bugs; none currently known).

  Of these 128 documents, mine failed none that yours didn't also fail;
yours failed 14 that mine passed; mostly because yours appears to only
accept at most two characters in %x00.00.00.00 style string and because
you only accept uppercase hex digits in %x constructs.

  I'll also note that your parser doesn't permit either blank lines
or multi-line prose-vals;

forbin% cat blankline
a = b

forbin% ./parser blankline
Rule: a = b
Not OK
Syntax error: c<*>

forbin% cat proseval
proseval = <This is a multi-line prose-val,
            which rfc2234 does not permit.>

forbin% ./parser proseval
Not OK
Syntax error: proseval = <This is a multi-line prose-val,

so I'm not sure what implementation it is you're pointing to that
implements the thing that's not 2234.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>