Re: 2822 revised grammar

Bruce Lilly wrote:

> I have no idea where you got that from; it's certainly
> not in 2822.

Of course not, it was an example where your idea that special
rules for CFWS automatically cover FWS, because it's a part
of CFWS, won't fly.

> Last time I checked, "word" wasn't an abbreviation.

Line 719 in 2822:

word            =       atom / quoted-string

Using your idea: "Read <word> as <atom> or <quoted-string>".

> There's at least one open source version of deroff that
> requires just a C compiler to build.

I won't check the state of my last surviving C compiler only
to "deroff" the flood of nroff texts I have to handle, i.e.
exactly two in the last decade, that includes your text ;-)

03:53   03:58 especially if my editor can do this with six
commands in less than 5 minutes.  But what I got won't pass
Bill's parser, and getting rid of the "ew" parts manually
would take some time.

>> for 2822bis we better stick to the 2822 idea, no MIME.

> I guess that's a matter for community discussion and
> consensus. Ignoring MIME doesn't seem rational

IBTD, it's a known way to limit the problem space, it worked
for 2822.

> there needs to be some sort of reconciliation between MIME
[...]
> and 2822

Sure, we also need a 2231bis etc.

> it really needs to be examined carefully.

Yes, starting with the 2822bis part would allow this.  If it
turns out to be "not interesting enough" maybe add MIME later.

E.g. check <cew>, AFAIK you can't have "?=" in an encoded word:
(=?us-ascii?Q?example?=?=)  Something's odd there.  Bye, Frank