--On Friday, February 06, 2009 13:55 +0100 "Tom.Petch"
<sisyphus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> I think too that there is a third issue, of a better name than
> RBNF. John clearly showed that this I-D is not reduced.
> Historic? Deprecated? Limited_applicability? Variant?
> Simplified?
"simplified" has the same problem as "reduced", unless one
argues that one simplifies a metalanguage by adding more
operators. "Variant" would work for me, and this actually is
much more of a variation on classic BNF (or ISO Extended BNF)
than ABNF is.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf