Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id JAA06376; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:26:20 -0500
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:25:07 -0500
Received: from domen.uninett.no by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id JAA06238; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:25:05 -0500
From: <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no>
Message-Id: <199603111425.JAA06238@CS.UTK.EDU>
Received: from domen.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) 
          id <07966-0@domen.uninett.no>; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 15:24:26 +0100
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95
To: Mark Crispin <MRC@Panda.COM>
cc: John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CMU.EDU>, drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Message format document outline
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 07 Mar 1996 12:53:53 PST." <MailManager.826232033.10347.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 15:24:24 +0100
Sender: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no

The LWSP insertion is a PAIN.

What about making a special symbol in the BNF, so that
for instance you could say:

 unsubscribe_obs ::= "UNSUBSCRIBE" SPACE "MAILBOX" SPACE mailbox

is a more strict version of

 unsubscribe_obs ::- "UNSUBSCRIBE" "MAILBOX" mailbox

?
This would make it plain(?) from looking at the individual rule
line whether LWSP insertion was allowed or not, instead of trying
to figure out which lexical parser is used to parse the tokens
that this rule line is intended for, which is a PAIN.

                   Harald A