Re: ABNF to Draft -- pending issues

Bill,

thanks for generating the real data!

I withdraw my objections at this time.

(part of the confusion is because I've done a lousy job of keeping versions 
of my parser straight; I believe that the parser I'm currently using for 
myself implements the blank-line fix; I don't know what versions are "out 
there", and don't even know how to tell you to figure out which version 
they are.)

--On 7. mars 2005 19:00 -0600 Bill Fenner <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Harald,
>
>   I used my ABNF extractor on RFCs 3000-3999, resulting
> in 128 ABNF documents.  I parsed them with both your parser (from
> http://www.ops.ietf.org/abnf/parser.tar.gz) and mine.  Your parser
> presumably implements the rules you think should exist; mine implements
> exactly RFC2234 (modulo bugs; none currently known).
>
>   Of these 128 documents, mine failed none that yours didn't also fail;
> yours failed 14 that mine passed; mostly because yours appears to only
> accept at most two characters in %x00.00.00.00 style string and because
> you only accept uppercase hex digits in %x constructs.
>
>   I'll also note that your parser doesn't permit either blank lines
> or multi-line prose-vals;
>
> forbin% cat blankline
> a = b
>
>  c
> forbin% ./parser blankline
> Rule: a = b
> Not OK
> Syntax error: c<*>
>
> forbin% cat proseval
> proseval = <This is a multi-line prose-val,
>             which rfc2234 does not permit.>
>
> forbin% ./parser proseval
> Not OK
> Syntax error: proseval = <This is a multi-line prose-val,
> <*>
>
> so I'm not sure what implementation it is you're pointing to that
> implements the thing that's not 2234.
>
>   Bill
>
>