On 17-May-25 03:22, Salz, Rich wrote:
An additional reason why I think that English sentences are better than ABNF or
any other formalism as the normative part of a standard track RFC: most people
understand what an English sentence means,
Can you imagine defining HTTP without ABNF? Or any other text-based protocol
that the IETF works on?
Well, consider the example of URI syntax.
Yes, it's formally defined in ABNF by RFC 3986 (as updated).
No, that's not what browsers implement. To find out what they implement, which
is different, you have to go to https://url.spec.whatwg.org/.
It's true that URI syntax is *not* something that the IETF works on, today. But
it definitely shows the difference between formal definitions and the real
world.
Brian
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
