On 18-May-25 02:32, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
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 assume that was meant to be
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9651#name-structured-data-types
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?
I don't know because I'm not visually impaired. I thought that was
the reason we were having this conversation. However, RFC 9651 explains
exactly why it uses all that English:
" Appendix C. ABNF
This section uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation [RFC5234] to
illustrate the expected syntax of Structured Fields. However, it cannot be used to
validate their syntax because it does not capture all requirements."
Conciseness is valuable in definitions of syntax. It makes it easier to
see the forest before getting lost among the trees.
That's true. But what RFC 9651 is saying is that some of the trees
are not implied by the ABNF, and therefore the ABNF is defective.
Brian
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
