Date: 29 Oct 1996 10:10:00 +0200
From: kai@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Message-ID: <6JlBqVPzcsB@khms.westfalen.de>
In-Reply-To: <v03100701ae9b0930d9cd@resnick1.isdn.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Goals of ABNF discussions
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.

dcrocker@brandenburg.com (Dave Crocker)  wrote on 28.10.96 in <v0310060eae9b144082fd@[205.214.160.81]>:

> At 5:11 PM -0800 10/28/96, Pete Resnick wrote:
> >orig-date = ("D" / "d") ("A" / "a") ("T" / "t") ("E" / "e") ":" date-time
> >CRLF
>
> 	oh.
>
> 	oh my.

Indeed.

And what do we want the default to be - case significant or insignificant?  
In all of 821 and 822, the *specific* text is case insignificant. The user- 
supplied text isn't in some cases (local part, subject, ...).

> 	Playing around, here are two thoughts, in the contenxt of a rule:
>
> 		rule = a / >"foo"< / b
>
> 		rule = a / <=>"foo" / b
>
> 		rule = a / +"foo"+ / b
>
> Not in love with or disgusted by them.  I think I am biased to a notation
> that involves both sides of the string.  How do other folks feel and what
> other suggestions do they have?

Similar to that, except we should think some more about what I wrote  
above.

> 	Your attitude is exactly I'm concerned about.  Defining a
> (meta)language with the idea of trying to prohibit bad behavior doesn't
> work.  Adding features to enable a major win is very different from
> removing them to prevent a major loss.  The way we should fix the laziness
> problem is to fix the laziness problem.

So don't remove it, but argue against it.


MfG Kai