[rfc-i] ABNF (RFC2234)

Dave Crocker dhc2 at dcrocker.net
Fri Feb 18 14:22:07 PST 2005


Bruce,

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:34:06 -0800, Bill Fenner wrote:
> >  OK -- what's the planned resolution of the multi-line <prose>
> >
> >  discrepancy?
> >
>  The plan is that multi-line <prose> will continue to be illegal.

to underscore Bill's response:

moving a specification to Draft Standard is supposed to include no significant technical changes.  making significant technical changes renders a specification unstable, in the sense that it removes the experience base that is used to justify advancement to Draft.

there are a substantial number of "enhancements" that different folk would like to make to ABNF.  Generally I think they are reasonable ideas.

The question is whether there is strong pressure from the community to re-cycle ABNF at Proposed, in order to include these enhancements.  Or would the community prefer to have ABNF advance to Draft, so that it can be cited by various other specifications that are advancing to Draft.

I've been seeing overwhelming desire for the latter, rather than the former.


d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker  a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list