On 18-May-25 09:19, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 17. May 2025, at 22:36, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
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
On 17. May 2025, at 22:36, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
>
> 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, i
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 wha
On 17. May 2025, at 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:
>>
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 i
