On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 03:58:22PM +0200, Ben Campbell wrote: > >> -- date-and-time, pattern and description: > >> > >> Which is the normative description for date-and-time? The ABNF in > >> the description, or the pattern attribute? I assume the second, but > >> fear the presence of ABNF will make others assume the first. > > > > Ideally, they should be consistent - and I hope they are. The ABNF is > > more detailed - if you read the comments - and copied from RFC 3339. > > If we make a change, we should completely remove the ABNF from the > > description and simply leave the pointer to RFC 3339, e.g. > > > > For a more detailed description, see section 5.6 of RFC 3336. > > > > Since the ABNF is copied, this does not really change much unless RFC > > 3336 gets updated perhaps. For now, I have left things as they are but > > I am open to be convinced to remove the ABNF if someone feels strongly > > about this. > > I don't feel strongly--it was just a mild general concern that duplicate > _normative_ text can lead to future errors if, as you say, the RFC gets > updated. But if you see value in having the ABNF in the description, that's > okay with me. At the most, it might be worth putting a comment in the > description to see the RFC for the full normative definition.
Since there is an explicit reference to RFC 3336, I think this is covered. Many of the data types document formats that are described in other documents and there is a general trade off what to include and what to leave out and to include by reference. I guess it is at the end a judgement call and at this stage of the process, I simply prefer to minimize changes. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
