On 17.05.2025 16:32, 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'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?
It makes implementing easier, in case you're willing to be *told* how to
do things.
Conciseness is valuable in definitions of syntax. It makes it easier to
see the forest before getting lost among the trees.
Yes.
In any case, a huge test suite is always good (when writing things such
as parsers).
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
