Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA12521; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 12:25:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Wed, 23 Jul 1997 12:25:45 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA12484; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 12:25:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop.netgate.net (root@pop.netgate.net [204.145.147.7]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA12465; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 12:25:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from slimnote (d88.netgate.net [205.214.160.124]) by pop.netgate.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA05373; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 12:04:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970723085945.00dd6698@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 08:59:45 -0700 To: Robert Elz From: Dave Crocker / IMC Subject: Re: A few more abnf-03 comments Cc: drums@cs.utk.edu In-Reply-To: <9900.869660429@munnari.OZ.AU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:20 PM 7/23/97 +1000, Robert Elz wrote: >I think I'd probably move PCHAR-NRB and PCHAR-NDQ out of the core, and ack. >The same may be true of LWSP, which is also a fairly specific rule, seems to me it shows up in other specs with some regularity. what do other folks prefer? >And finally, I wonder if PCHAR should include space (%x20)? Clearly the now here's a point worthy of some debate. My guess is that we need two constructs in the core, one for visible chars without space and one which permits spaces (and tab?). No WSP is for things like field names. Ones with WSP are for "free text". comments, folks? >None of these are what I would call fundamentally important, just minor i think your points are extremely useful items to tune correctly. thanks. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org