Subject: [abnf-discuss] ABNF updates

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:21:29 -0700

(I broke this out of the thread because the topic has changed)

Just more of my opinion.

I too have written an ABNF parser. Its not something I ever wanted to 
release. I use it to create a bunch of templates for developing code 
based on ABNF. Then the templates are updated into real code. Much of 
what it generates is tossed as it generates extra stuff my particular 
application does not need.

The reason ASN.1 is difficult, is because protocols can be difficult, 
ambiguous, and can have convoluted exceptions. Then someone needs to 
merge it with something new, so it get updated and more complex.

The current ABNF is somewhat easy to understand. The constrained draft 
is not somewhat easy to understand.

I just don't see the constrained proposal as making future drafts more 
clear to a reader. Perhaps it does make it easier for a programmer. And 
where would making it easier for a programmer stop?

Looking forward to updates to constrained!

However external reference stuff will be great in helping avoid 
misunderstandings by specifying exactly what is being referenced. And it 
eliminates using comments a the protocol definition which I have missed 
more than once, or incorrectly applied to the line above or below the 
correct ABNF.

-- 

Doug Royer - (http://DougRoyer.US)
[email-masked]
714-989-6135

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 10:32:49 -0500

> where would making it easier for a programmer stop?

Is your problem with the syntax, or with the concept?

If the syntax, then do you have any thoughts about how to improve it?

> more than once, or incorrectly applied to the line above or below the

Indeed. I believe that formalizing external references is good for both 
human readers and automated processing.

	Thanks,
	Paul