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;
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 15:57:49 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <50E45623.9060607@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1301021552190.15409@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <50DCD850.3020106@alum.mit.edu>
	<alpine.LSU.2.00.1301021022570.15409@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
	<50E45623.9060607@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: abnf-discuss@ietf.org, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It would need to be able to distinguish among potentially independent sets of
> rules, within a spec. We don't currently have a way to indicate that.

Has there ever been any need for it? You can solve the problem using an
informal namespace hack, e.g. named beginning A- are in set A and Z- are
in set Z. Each independent parser is defined by its starting rule name.

> Also, I like the idea of having a formal construct to 'import' rulesets.  I
> think this needs a way of labeling the set and declaring its being imported.

At the moment specs tend to just (informally) import all the rules from
RFC NNNN.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first.
Rough, becoming slight or moderate. Showers, rain at first. Moderate or good,
occasionally poor at first.
_______________________________________________
abnf-discuss mailing list
abnf-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abnf-discuss