On Fri, 18 May 2007 00:38:15 +0100, Tony Finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> wrote:
It would be nice if the progression of ABNF to a full standard reduces
this Babel.
Well do we know exactly how much Babel there is?
If we deprecate LWSP for future use, then the remaining problem is the set
of existing standards that rely on it (plus a few that have redefined
it/whatever, but those are not strictly relying on it).
So has anyone grepped through the the whole RFC databas to identify which
current standards do rely on the definition? And of those that do, how
many of them now contain (possibly not recognised) problems arising from
its use?
The answers to those questions might throw some light on how we should now
proceed.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html