X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Delivered-To: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.59.3.41 with SMTP id bt9csp136060ved;
        Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:24:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.68.132.232 with SMTP id ox8mr144898300pbb.46.1357143880486;
        Wed, 02 Jan 2013 08:24:40 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <abnf-discuss-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:126c::1:1e])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id qc4si44824586pbb.236.2013.01.02.08.24.39;
        Wed, 02 Jan 2013 08:24:40 -0800 (PST)
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;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of abnf-discuss-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:126c::1:1e as permitted sender) smtp.mail=abnf-discuss-bounces@ietf.org; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@ietf.org
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71EBC21F8650;
	Wed,  2 Jan 2013 08:24:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1;
	t=1357143879; bh=uJKRppGUrOXCh6oMQj28+KcuCQ5P6V7Lh1AVwllq9tA=;
	h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Cc:
	 Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:
	 List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender;
	b=J2p8PndO41X96FCrJp7v7RyOZIymHvndK5lN0UhgBPXlPsRoefNasrCj9F2LLK78F
	 Sf+PlgbQ/7/tqapJak+iqPHwTT2HuzDze+5UfnhHbv2/DiHP+246ZB6WKpCdzeqhBc
	 K71eR2jpJbhea16mqlWQR+kT9X8qr72llulUEfVw=
X-Original-To: abnf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: abnf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90F7B21F8644
	for <abnf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  2 Jan 2013 08:24:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.018
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.581, 
	BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30])
	by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id Kp9DY5VfwFNI for <abnf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>;
	Wed,  2 Jan 2013 08:24:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151])
	by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BD9121F8464
	for <abnf-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed,  2 Jan 2013 08:24:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.ucs.cam.ac.uk/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:44253)
	by ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.158]:25)
	with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1TqR7I-0001Jq-Ye (Exim 4.72)
	(return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:24:32 +0000
Received: from fanf2 by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk)
	with local id 1TqR7I-0005BT-Ls (Exim 4.72)
	(return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:24:32 +0000
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 16:24:32 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <50E45B21.20509@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1301021611070.15409@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>
	<alpine.LSU.2.00.1301021552190.15409@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
	<50E45B21.20509@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
X-BeenThere: abnf-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "General discussion about tools,
	activities and capabilities involving the ABNF meta-language"
	<abnf-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/abnf-discuss>,
	<mailto:abnf-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/abnf-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:abnf-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:abnf-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abnf-discuss>,
	<mailto:abnf-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
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:
> On 1/2/2013 7:57 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Well, ummm, RFC822 had several parsers, such as for addresses versus dates
> versus free-form like Subject.  Applications often need this, I believe.

Hmm, well I would describe those as sub-languages whereas I thought we
were talking about independent languages. But in both cases they can be
defined / identified using the transitive closure from the starting rule,
without revising ABNF.

I can see that rule sets might be useful for importing collections of
low-level rules, like the ABNF core rules.

> What I don't know is whether there will be the community will to pursue it --
> will we see enough operational benefit?

I think a formal import mechanism would be very useful and could be quite
easy to deploy. Adding namespaces will be a lot of work.

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

