[rfc-i] ABNF (RFC2234)

Dave Crocker dhc2 at dcrocker.net
Mon Feb 21 18:12:01 PST 2005


> >  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.
> >
>  It's often a difficult call.  

So far, no it's not.  That's why I said "overwhelming".

One of the biggest dangers to any standards effort (or any development project) is the legitimate desire to make it better.  Delay kills real-world utility.

What works better is to stick with a stable version, and revise it only very occasionally.



>  On another note, some of the ABNF provisions make little sense:

Given the long history of using abnf, and the lengthy discussions that produced the current rfc, 'make little sense' is not likely to be a general-purpose assessment.

the reality is that any interesting specification has unintended behaviors.  folks try to minimize them, of course, but the only real concern is if they prove to be showstoppers.



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




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