On Wed, 16 May 2007, John C Klensin wrote: > > It seems to me that we have two separate issues here (I'm not > even going to go so far as "problems"): > > (1) Some documents have used the term LWSP in a way that is not > strictly conformant with the definition in the ABNF document. > > (2) From that point of view, it is easy to argue that ABNF has just > gotten too complex, both as the result of trying to formalize some > characteristics of 822 while maintaining a single-pass syntax evaluator > and possibly as a second-system effect. I thought the problem is that protocols that have used LWSP correctly have had too many interop problems, so they have replaced it with a simpler rule such as FWS. I'm surprised you say ABNF has become too complex. It's hardly changed apart from removal of the # rule, and if you took anything else out it would lead to rather less readable grammars. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <dot@xxxxxxxx> http://dotat.at/ NORTH FITZROY SOLE LUNDY FASTNET: WEST OR NORTHWEST 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6 OR 7. MODERATE, OCCASIONALLY ROUGH. OCCASIONAL RAIN OR DRIZZLE. GOOD BECOMING MODERATE OR POOR. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf