Subject: Re: RFC-2445: ABNF/prose mismatch on parameters

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:50:43 -0400

WRT:
>IMHO if this is what is in question then there isn't a problem from my
>point of view. Reason: it is simple to check (using code) for the special
>cases mentioned in the prose after you have parsed eventc.

My explicit example may not have been one that John originally had in mind 
when he wrote:

>The ABNF in RFC-2445 specifies an ordering for the parameters of a 
component: 
>[Snip] This disagrees with the prose.

 My intent was to show that the ABNF imparts some explicit ordering of 
components but the exact one I chose may already jive 100% w/the 
accompanying text.  Perhaps John can give an exact example if that would 
be of help to some.

In any case, the issue of ABNF vs prose discrepancies needs to be 
resolved.  I think that we agreed that any discrepancies should be 
resolved in favor of the text.  However, as I noted originally this may 
make the ABNF really really nasty and I would be against any _signficiant_ 
nastyness or bloating.

WRT:
>Is it so bad that we parse an object, then
>use code to test its validity?

BTW: There is no way w/any amount of coding (no matter how good you are) 
that discrepancies between ABNF and text can be rectified pre or post 
parsing.  Validity checking, etc can be done separately from "Is Due and 
Duration allowed on the same vEvent and if so, how many times may each 
occur?" etc.   If your starting point (the ABNF) is inaccurate when 
compared w/the descriptive text then your starting point is flawed and it 
affects everything else you do later on.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: [email-masked]
Iris Associates                          Phone: 978.392.5335
Westford, MA, USA 01886                    FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:35:42 -0400 (EDT)

> make the ABNF really really nasty and I would be against any _signficiant_ 

Me too.

> affects everything else you do later on.
Yes, when there are discrepancies. I had failed to find the discrepancies
in the example you had given and assumed that the request was simply to change the
 prose into ABNF.

To clarify: I didn't state code could rectify discrepancies, that would
just be too illogical:-) I was simply voting to keep the prose (fixing any
discrepancies of course) because it has been easy for me to meet the
requirements stated in the prose with some code.

I did miss the post that explained exactly which prose was at odds with
what ABNF. Could someone please post it or email it to me? I'd appreciate
it.

Thanks.

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 07:25:30 -0400

[email-masked] wrote:

> accompanying text.  Perhaps John can give an exact example if that
> would be of help to some.

I don't have one; I just happened to be online during the meeting, so I
sent the message.  I think it was Doug and Frank that encountered the
discrepancy during interop testing.

--
/=============================================================\
|John Stracke    | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK  |
[email-masked]|============================================|
|Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed |
|eCal Corp.      |  by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch |
\=============================================================/