Going back to RFC 2205,
These rules are specified using Backus-Naur Form (BNF) augmented
with square brackets surrounding optional sub-sequences.
What do you think of BNFO, for "Backus-Naur Form with Options"?
or BNFB, for "Backus-Naur Form with Brackets"?
Tony Hansen
tony@xxxxxxx
John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --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.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf