Re: ABNF

On Wed May 11 2005 22:40, Dave Crocker wrote:

> It's a little worse than that, I think.  The idea of correlating a comment 
> with a particular bit of ABNF strikes me as clever, like so many ideas.
> 
> However, like so many ideas, the real question is whether the community 
> requires it, thereby justifying the effort to invent the solution and rev the 
> specification.  

You have missed the point(s):
1. As written, parsing ABNF requires arbitrarily-large lookahead
2. Because of the ambiguity, a parser which appears to be parsing ABNF
   (as that is specified) may in fact be parsing a different grammar (one
   without that ambiguity), and would not be suitable as a fully-conforming
   implementation for the purpose of advancement of the specification to
   Draft status.