IPP> ABNF near finished? [problem with - for range?]

IPP> ABNF near finished? [problem with - for range?]

IPP> ABNF near finished? [problem with - for range?]

Chris Newman Chris.Newman at innosoft.com
Thu Apr 17 14:46:20 EDT 1997


On Thu, 17 Apr 1997, Tom Hastings wrote:


> Will the decision to use "-" for ranges, instead of "..", have problems where 
> "-" is one of the characters used in tokens to give nice readable attribute 
> names and value names, such as in ASN.1, and IPP?  Having to resort to using
> "_" (underscore) as a separator between words in attribute names 
> and attribute value names or having to quote attribute names and value 
> names that contain "-" would be a big step backward.


I will note that ABNF now only permits the range notation in literals
(e.g. %x80-FF) so "-" is still valid in rule names (e.g. foo-bar).  On the
other hand, having "-" used both as part of rule names and as ranges is a
likely source of confusion.  That issue was not raised in the discussion
at the WG IETF meeting.


> I don't know whether ":" could be used for a range or not?
> 
> Thanks for your consideration that "-" (hyphen) be used in tokens
> and not for ranges.
> 
> I happen to like the ".." for range.  I wonder if there is someway
> to preserve that usage for ranges and fix you ambiguity problem some
> other way?


There were not many strong feelings between "-" and ".." at the IETF
meeting.  Basically, "-" was slightly favored in discussion, although the
issue you raise was not mentioned and could easily swing the rough
concensus.


You need to post your concerns to the DRUMS mailing list (subscribe at
<drums-request at cs.utk.edu>, post at <drums at cs.utk.edu>) and defend your
preference for .. over - on the mailing list.



More information about the Ipp mailing list