[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2822 revised grammar

2005-07-22 19:39:09

Bruce Lilly wrote:

I have no idea where you got that from; it's certainly
not in 2822.

Of course not, it was an example where your idea that special
rules for CFWS automatically cover FWS, because it's a part
of CFWS, won't fly.

Last time I checked, "word" wasn't an abbreviation.

Line 719 in 2822:

word            =       atom / quoted-string

Using your idea: "Read <word> as <atom> or <quoted-string>".

There's at least one open source version of deroff that
requires just a C compiler to build.

I won't check the state of my last surviving C compiler only
to "deroff" the flood of nroff texts I have to handle, i.e.
exactly two in the last decade, that includes your text ;-)

03:53   03:58 especially if my editor can do this with six
commands in less than 5 minutes.  But what I got won't pass
Bill's parser, and getting rid of the "ew" parts manually
would take some time.

for 2822bis we better stick to the 2822 idea, no MIME.

I guess that's a matter for community discussion and
consensus. Ignoring MIME doesn't seem rational

IBTD, it's a known way to limit the problem space, it worked
for 2822.

there needs to be some sort of reconciliation between MIME
and 2822

Sure, we also need a 2231bis etc.

it really needs to be examined carefully.

Yes, starting with the 2822bis part would allow this.  If it
turns out to be "not interesting enough" maybe add MIME later.

E.g. check <cew>, AFAIK you can't have "?=" in an encoded word:
(=?us-ascii?Q?example?=?=)  Something's odd there.  Bye, Frank