Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA01220; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:34:52 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.6); Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:34:28 -0400 Received: from ng.netgate.net (root@ng.netgate.net [204.145.147.10]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA01144; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:34:24 -0400 Received: from [205.214.160.67] (d17.netgate.net [205.214.160.49]) by ng.netgate.net (8.7.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA12476; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 14:38:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: dcrocker@ng.netgate.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8lmOdhy00WBwQaGWlS@andrew.cmu.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 14:10:56 -0700 To: John Gardiner Myers From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: abnf.txt Cc: drums@cs.utk.edu At 12:45 PM -0700 6/20/96, John Gardiner Myers wrote: >The basic rule form: > > name = elements > >should instead use the notation: > > name ::= elements > >which matches ABNF use in more recent RFC's, as well as matching the >notation predominately used in BNF and EBNF. oh goodie. a really major point we can debate... For about 20 years, I've felt that the extra characters were just that: extra. There's no good aesthetic or notational benefit that I can think of, just extra typing. For those who don't know it, the form you support is the original BNF form.) So I request two things: 1) explanation of the benefit for the longer form, and 2) comments from others. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org