Search the Archives

RFC 2234: I don't think the ABNF specification of ABNF is correct...

Reader comments:

FAQS.ORG makes no guarantees as to the accuracy of the posts. Each post is the personal opinion of the poster. These posts are not intended to substitute for medical, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. FAQS.ORG does not endorse any opinion or any product or service mentioned mentioned in these posts.

<< Back to: RFC 2234

Comment by M X Shaw
Submitted on 8/14/2004
Related RFC: RFC 2234
Rating: Not yet rated	Rate this comment:
I don't think the ABNF specification of ABNF is correct w.r.t. comments. A comment is not defined to be on continuing lines.So the following is not correct: ; prose description, to be used as last resortHere last resort is on a separate line.The comment definition is comment = ";" *(WSP / VCHAR) CRLFHere neither WSP or VCHAR makes allowance for a continuing line. Changing WSP to c_wsp would be a sort of recursive definition and might solve the issue but then you couldn't tell when the next line is a comment or a continuation of the rule definition.