>>>>> Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have to disagree with the point here. > Some might describe me as a "grammatist", in that I prefer a formal > definition of the grammar to an informal one. > The issue isn't that the syntax is formally specified by a grammar. It is > what syntax was chosen to be formalized. It would be equally grammatical to > choose a simpler form.
No. I meant approach to exploit a grammar to obtain maximal flexibility (but making parsing and changing more complex) instead of more restrictive, but easier to deal with, approach. > There clearly are conflicting goals in choosing the syntax for a protocol > like sip. I wasn't there when it started, so I won't speak to exactly what > the motivations were for the choices made then. Clearly there was a > decision to model it after email. That's why I mentioned RFC822. But one shall still give credit for avoiding most horrible approaches, as its quoted-string. Current SIP grammar allows either grammatical and regexp-supported parsing, as opposed to email one. -- Valentin Nechayev PortaOne Inc., Software Engineer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
