Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA15657; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 13:39:01 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Tue, 29 Oct 1996 13:38:40 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA15621; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 13:38:38 -0500 Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (qmailr@koobera.math.uic.edu [128.248.178.247]) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA15602; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 13:38:32 -0500 Received: (qmail 1286 invoked by uid 666); 29 Oct 1996 18:43:41 -0000 Date: 29 Oct 1996 18:43:41 -0000 Message-ID: <19961029184341.1285.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu> From: "D. J. Bernstein" To: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt > True. Except that 2 doesn't really buy us anything. Well, it moves the star to the end of the name and changes it to an s. :-) There are only about ten places in RFC 822 with constructions like comment = "(" *(ctext / quoted-pair / comment) ")" and I think they can all be improved to comment = "(" *comment-element ")" comment-element = ctext / quoted-pair / comment And arguing about the precedence of concatenation vs. alternation seems worse than prohibiting the mixture outright. Is this mixture used in RFC 822 for anything other than entire fields? ---Dan