Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA13489; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 13:27:31 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Mon, 23 Dec 1996 13:27:20 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA13462; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 13:27:18 -0500 Received: from mage.qualcomm.com (mage.qualcomm.com [129.46.50.61]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA13456; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 13:27:16 -0500 Received: from ra4000-p64.qualcomm.com (ra4000-p61.qualcomm.com [129.46.54.141]) by mage.qualcomm.com (8.8.4/1.4d/8.7.2/1.12) with ESMTP id KAA21861; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 10:26:29 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19961222162722.00e244f0@lacroix> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 3.1a12] Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 12:28:21 -0500 To: "Jack De Winter" From: Pete Resnick Subject: Re: regarding the use of dot atoms Cc: drums@cs.utk.edu On 12/22/96 at 4:27 PM -0500, Jack De Winter wrote: >*CFWS 1*(atext ["." atext ]) *CFWS > >so am I supposed to read that as "there is one occurence" or >as "there are one or more occurences"? One or more. >If there is more than >one occurence, you are saying that "domain1.comdomain2.com" is >a valid domain part? Absolutely. >While I realize syntactically it may >be correct, can't we move the closing parethesis out over the final >*CFWS to make it more clear? No, it wouldn't be more clear, it would be wrong. The dot-atom rule doesn't specify a syntax for one or more domains (for example), it specifies the syntax for 1 domain made up of one or more dot-atoms. pr -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated Work: (217)337-6377 / Fax: (217)337-1980