Re: ABNF

> >  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.


Well, yes, those sound pretty serious. So serious, that I'm sure there is a 
strong community desire to have changes made.

Unfortunately, I have not noticed community support for your assessment.  So 
the rest of the community does not share your views.


  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net