Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA11070; Sat, 23 May 1998 16:05:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.10); Sat, 23 May 1998 16:03:55 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA10994; Sat, 23 May 1998 16:03:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA10976; Sat, 23 May 1998 16:03:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [130.237.150.138] (jph1.dsv.su.se [130.237.150.138]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.7.6/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA16424; Sat, 23 May 1998 22:01:01 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: jpalme@mail.dsv.su.se Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 20:04:39 +0200 To: John C Klensin , drums@cs.utk.edu From: Jacob Palme Subject: Add FWS and CFWS to the ABNF standard At 17.04 +0200 98-05-21, John C Klensin wrote: > Question for the Chair, the ADs, and the WG? What would > you like to do here? One possibility is that Pete and I > put our heads together and very quickly produce a doc that > might be described as "ABNF Base Syntax for Email-related > Standards" which picks up everything in the intersection of > his definitions and mine, and maybe everything used by > either of us that is used, e.g., in the NOTARY or MIXER > docs. This would obviously be a superset of the "core" > spec in 2234. Or we could decide to live with either the > normative dependencies or duplicate information. That would be very useful. Especially definitions of FWS and CFWS, which are needed in almost every standard, should have been in the ABNF standard itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacob Palme (Stockholm University and KTH) for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme