[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Advance RFC 2234? (was Re: DISCUSS on UTF-8 to Standard)



Dave Crocker went through this exercise some time back, and he found one more unused feature: the %x01.02.03 syntax for writing multiple-byte values without repeating the %x prefix.

It turned out that my parser had a bug on that particular syntax that had gone undetected for quite a while.

see draft-crocker-abnf-v3-00 for his edited version; section 7 lists the "not part of this specification" syntaxes.

Harald

--On mandag, mai 05, 2003 17:33:56 -0700 ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote:

I have now gone through this exercise, and the resulting report
appears below. You will note that I was able to find multiple uses
of every general feature of the language. The only specific feature I had
problems with was binary representation of terminal values. The only
RFC I could find that used this representation was RFC 3018, and its
usage was a bit peculiar. So I suppose if we wanted to remove something
binary representation would be it. But I really don't think this is
necessary or particularly useful.