On 5/17/25 1:27 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 16.05.2025 17:22, Salz, Rich wrote:
An additional reason why I think that English sentences are better
than ABNF or any other formalism as the normative part of a standard
track RFC: most people understand what an English sentence means,
Can you imagine defining HTTP without ABNF? Or any other text-based
protocol that the IETF works on?
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9651#appendix-D-2.3.1>
I've encountered this style before while doing genart reviews.
It does seem to precisely define they syntax. But it takes an order of
magnitude more text than equivalent ABNF would.
I fail to grasp any benefits that this provides. Are there any?
Conciseness is valuable in definitions of syntax. It makes it easier to
see the forest before getting lost among the trees.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
