Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id VAA06149; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:29:24 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.6); Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:29:05 -0400 Received: from po10.andrew.cmu.edu (PO10.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.10.110]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id VAA06115; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:29:02 -0400 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po10.andrew.cmu.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA01258 for drums@cs.utk.edu; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:28:49 -0400 Received: via switchmail; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:28:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nifty.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:27:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: via niftymail; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:27:34 -0400 (EDT) Sender: Chris Newman Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:27:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Chris Newman Subject: Re: common nonterminals To: drums@cs.utk.edu In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <837134854.5382.0@nifty.andrew.cmu.edu> Dave Crocker writes: > This note is to call the question among the working group > participants. > > Not that there has been a large number of people involved so far, I > nonetheless note that everyone seems to want definition of the common > nonterminals to be part of the metalanguage definition document. I.e., one > document, not two. > > Therefore I hereby declare a rough consensus that they shall be > merged and request that anyone holding strong objections speak up quickly. > I'll consider the issue closed unless there are unnavigable waves generated > by this Friday. It does seem that the mailing list rough consensus is to include them in the same document. Given that this is opposite of the rough consensus at Montreal, I suggest we give people a little more time to comment. Let's wait until Monday July 15th before calling the ABNF issues closed. ----- Chris Newman , U.S. Citizens: Ask your representatives to support S.1587/S.1726/HR.3011 for a right to Internet privacy and encryption.