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;
Message-ID: <50E72801.3060906@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:05:37 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Overell <paul@bayleaf.org.uk>
References: <20130103171755.20983.75939.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
	<50E5BF59.9000207@alum.mit.edu> <50E5D4C5.8010800@alum.mit.edu>
	<tk0GjBDTOy5QFAkk@paul.bayleaf.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <tk0GjBDTOy5QFAkk@paul.bayleaf.org.uk>
Cc: abnf-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [abnf-discuss] A proposal for adding import and scopping to ABNF
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: abnf-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: abnf-discuss-bounces@ietf.org


On 1/4/2013 10:46 AM, Paul Overell wrote:
> 4)
>
> Have you considered an import syntax to specify importing just a
> specific rule or list of rules?  E.g. Importing from RFC5234 one might
> just want some of the core rules from Appendix B, but not want the ABNF
> Definition of ABNF in section 4.


I've been wondering about the model of rule/set/ vs. individual rule 
importation.  Although it could become cumbersome for large sets, having 
a mechanism that merely calls for naming each imported rule separately 
is simplest.

I believe that by far the pattern of importations is of rather short 
lists.  So the actual burden of the simplistic model would not typically 
be all that onerous.

d/


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