Subject: [Ietf-calsify] ABNF

From: lists at block-online.eu (Oliver Block)
Date: Fri Sep 22 16:04:37 2006

Hello list,

The ABNF notation could be spared.

As an example (page 51/52):

     calprops   = 2*(

                ; 'prodid' and 'version' are both REQUIRED,
                ; but MUST NOT occur more than once

                prodid /version /

                ; 'calscale' and 'method' are optional,
                ; but MUST NOT occur more than once

                calscale        /
                method          /

                x-prop

                )

Could be noted as follows:

calprops   =  prodid version  *1calscale *1method *x-prop

or:

calprops   =  prodid version  [calscale] [method] *x-prop

Regards,

Oliver

-- 
Leben ist mehr als ... 
http://www.nak-nrw.de/p_6_4.html

---

From: bernard.desruisseaux at oracle.com (Bernard Desruisseaux)
Date: Fri Sep 22 17:35:12 2006

Hi Oliver,

The notation you are proposing would dictate a specific
ordering of the properties.

Cheers,
Bernard

---

From: cyrus at daboo.name (Cyrus Daboo)
Date: Sat Sep 23 07:47:03 2006

Hi Bernard,

> ordering of the properties.

Unfortunately ABNF itself does not have the concept of an 'unordered' list 
of items. However, the last time I discussed this with ABNF folks, I think 
the general consensus was that it was OK to add a comment to the ABNF 
stating that all items in that element were 'unordered'. So we could have:

calprops   =  prodid version [calscale] [method] *x-prop
              ; can appear in any order

I do think that is better than having comments indicating the frequency of 
occurrence of each element as we have now.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: lear at cisco.com (Eliot Lear)
Date: Mon Sep 25 05:01:47 2006

Cyrus,

>
> Unfortunately ABNF itself does not have the concept of an 'unordered'
> list of items. However, the last time I discussed this with ABNF
> folks, I think the general consensus was that it was OK to add a
> comment to the ABNF stating that all items in that element were
> 'unordered'. So we could have:
>
> I do think that is better than having comments indicating the
> frequency of occurrence of each element as we have now.
>

We have to be extremely careful about these changes, but I believe the
above text is actually more clear than what is there.  Does anyone
object to this change?

Eliot

---

From: alexey.melnikov at isode.com (Alexey Melnikov)
Date: Mon Sep 25 10:55:22 2006

>above text is actually more clear than what is there.  Does anyone
I don't have any objections, however many people don't bother reading 
ABNF. So this comment should also appear in the text.

---

From: lear at cisco.com (Eliot Lear)
Date: Mon Sep 25 10:58:04 2006

> ABNF. So this comment should also appear in the text.

Right.  Similar to the one that there now ;-)