I don't have any comment on the issue of language tags, but speaking as a
reasonably avid ABNF hacker, I agree with Sam, and would not want to
establish a convention that ABNF in IETF RFCs is expected to be precise.
One MUST read the text to understand what the limits of the syntax are.
This is especially true with repetitions. It's usually tortuous to write
ABNF that limits repetitions or string lengths. It's possible, but the
result is very hard to understand.
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Sam Hartman
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 1:55 PM
To: ietf-languages(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
"Bruce" == Bruce Lilly <blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
Bruce> If there really are only 24 items of less than 11 octets
Bruce> each, a trivial solution is to simply list them (with the
Bruce> usual ABNF syntax) as literal strings. That should take no
Bruce> more than a half-dozen lines.
Perhaps. I actually find a lot of ABNF specs are not as clear as they
could be to humans because they are trying to describe the valid
inputs as strictly as possible. In many cases I think the spec would
be more clear if the ABNF were relaxed and other constraints were
expressed at appropriate levels.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf