On Sun, 1 Apr 2007, Ned Freed wrote:
...
> Another issue I recently noticed about encoded-character refers to the WSP
> production but does not define it. I don't see it defined or referenced
> anywhere else in the specification either. Perhaps this should be changed to
> white-space, which is defined?
No, not unless you really think we want this:
"${unicode:110 /* a comment with a close brace } */ 69}"
to be an encoding of "Hi".
WSP is defined in the ABNF "Core rules" which are assumed as the base of
all the ABNF snippets in 3028bis (c.f., DIGIT, CRLF, etc).
Sorry, missed that was one of the core rules. But that makes me wonder if LWSP
wouldn't be more appropriate...
We also have a card-before-the-horse problem, in that we don't refer to the use
of ABNF for defining our grammars until section 8.1 but the ABNF for
encoded-character is in 2.4.2.4. (Well, to be fair, we do mention ABNF in the
conventions section, but only to compare it to how Usage: statements are
constructed.) The customary way to do this is to put the reference to ABNF in
the conventions section. I can understand not bothering when ABNF was only used
in one place, but that's no longer true.
Finally, I wonder if we should be explicit about how encoded-character
constructs interact with text: blocks. My reading is that they should work.
Does everyone else agree?
Ned