Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of abnf-discuss-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:126c::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:126c::1:1e;
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, Daniel van Vugt <vanvugt@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [abnf-discuss] Some thoughts about how to make ABNF more
	convenient to use
Thread-Index: AQHN5YlLEpv8L7t9wUK3qEA9r6SsupgvsDcA//+z+IA=
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 06:39:28 +0000
Message-ID: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F7C6D29@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <50DE8996.2030207@alum.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010
Content-ID: <8CB51EAB355B3342B8AE2BC018F172A9@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "abnf-discuss@ietf.org" <abnf-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [abnf-discuss] Some thoughts about how to make ABNF more
 convenient to use
Precedence: list
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: abnf-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: abnf-discuss-bounces@ietf.org

On 12/29/12 1:11 AM, "Paul Kyzivat" <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>On 12/29/12 12:56 AM, Daniel van Vugt wrote:

>>Has there ever been a similar proposal for delimiting and automating
>> extraction of sample code from RFCs?
>
>I don't know. That's why I'm asking.

Yes.  That's on the rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org mailer.  It has been
asserted there that nobody would ever want to extract the ABNF from an I-D
or RFC programmatically, so perhaps you'd like to weigh in.

The prototype I have for a possible way forward does what you want already:

https://github.com/IETF-Formatters/html-rfc


If you have nicely marked-up HTML and an ABNF parser handy, the checking
ABNF for syntax errors is as small as:

https://github.com/IETF-Formatters/html-rfc/blob/master/nits/check-abnf.js


-- 
Joe Hildebrand


_______________________________________________
abnf-discuss mailing list
abnf-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abnf-discuss