Subject: Re: [Ltru] Section 2.2.8 needs overhaul

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:47:47 -0600

Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:

> I don't really see why LTRU has been stricken by the "not invented 
> here syndrome" on this point. Especially since the replacement 
> invention is not particularly nice or nifty, and is far from 
> necessary. Let's employ conventional methods, please.

I don't understand the NIH comment, probably because I don't understand 
what part of the ABNF specs or implementation is *supposed* to have been 
invented here (that is, by the LTRU group).  Maybe I'm not clear on what 
"here" refers to.

I find it a bit ironic that this started seemingly as a complaint 
against the inaccuracy of the 4646bis ABNF, which normally implies "by 
comparison with the standard"; but when it was pointed out that ABNF 
strictly doesn't allow productions to be prioritized, then the target 
shifted from the standard to "commonly used parser generation tools."

Anyway, I suggest going back to my idea from June 13 to combine the 
syntactically regular grandfathered tags ("no-nyn") and the 
syntactically irregular grandfathered tags ("i-hak") into a single 
"grandfathered" production.  This would be equivalent to adding the 
syntactically regular tags back into the existing "irregular" 
production, and renaming it.

This should satisfy Kent because the commonly used tools can be taught 
to use this production first, yielding the desired behavior; it should 
satisfy John because it doesn't try to do the impossible (i.e. provide 
unambiguous parse trees in pure, standard ABNF with non-ridiculous 
productions); and it would satisfy me because "no-nyn" and "i-hak" would 
not be pointlessly divided into two productions.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Arvada, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:20:03 -0700

I disagree. What we have needs no change. It is trivial for anyone to put
together the 9 tags plus the irregulars to get their own rules.

Mark

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:44:38 -0600

Mark Davis wrote:

> I disagree. What we have needs no change. It is trivial for anyone to 
> put together the 9 tags plus the irregulars to get their own rules.

Well, I wouldn't try to use ABNF to derive semantic meaning anyway, so 
for me, what we have needs no change.  I was trying to find a compromise 
for those who do see a need to change the ABNF yet again.