spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

[spf-discuss] Re: Calling BNF lawyers

2007-01-17 18:20:01
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Julian Mehnle wrote:
OMG!  You must be kidding!  If we followed this interpretation, we
could throw away the grammar definitions for all the known modifiers,
because they'd be simply irrelevant.

Are you really saying that "unknown-modifier" should have been defined
as:

  unknown-modifier      = unknown-modifier-name "=" macro-string
  unknown-modifier-name = ( "a" / "b" / "c" / "d" ) name-tail /

No. It just needs a note that says

    unknown-modifier      = name "=" macro-string
      ; where name is not any known modifier name

You don't have to spell out such things in detail, but you do have
to say something.

Oh, really?  For me, it was obvious.  For me, the formal grammar isn't the 
end to it all (just like with "a/44").

Yes, the spec could have been clearer on some points, but most of the 
fuzziness can be compensated just by using one's brain.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFrsrOwL7PKlBZWjsRAmwLAKCaoWc8OaGquvwCOVCBMtQxH1HD2ACg7k8c
jIm2WRDYJJOieo+sWVp0GzE=
=DuSB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, 
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735

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