[rfc-i] ABNF (RFC2234) vs HTTP's augmented BNF syntax (RFC822
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sat Feb 12 13:06:12 PST 2005
Bob Braden wrote:
> *> I think you're missing that the "#rule" (not mine, btw :-) also allows
> *> commas in the list production, thus
> *> 1#element
> *> translates to
> *> ( *LWS element *( *LWS "," *LWS element ))
> *> which is clearly less readable.
> No, under my assumption (your implied WSP rule), it translates to
> ( element *( ", " element ))
> which does not seem so bad to me. It falls trippingly over the eye,
> in fact.
Got it :-)
So the summary would be that it's ok to invoke the "implied LWS" rule
(after all, it doesn't affect the ABNF syntax, just its meaning in the
spec), but one should stay away from defining extensions (such as
RFC2616 does to RFC822)?
Best regards, Julian
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
More information about the rfc-interest