[rfc-i] [Json] v3imp #8 Fragment tagging on sourcecode
dev+ietf at seantek.com
Thu Jan 29 03:04:01 PST 2015
On 1/28/2015 10:11 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Nico Williams wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:25:34AM +1100, Manger, James wrote:
>>>>> Overall I still stand by my proposition that the RFC is the module
>>>>> for ABNF purposes. Honestly it just makes things a lot simpler.
>>>> Well, draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-13 will break this proposition.
>>>> But this issue (two ABNF rules with the same name) was raised earlier, and no one thought it was a problem.
>>> The issued was raised because someone did think it was a problem.
>> I typed too quickly. I mean that no one thought the change had to be
> I very strongly urge to change this.
Yes. Let's just look at this from a readability standpoint.
Suppose you have some standard that defines "newline" in two different
newline = CR
newline = LF
is that really clear? It's pretty unclear. I would call that an
editorial problem (at least). It would be much clearer to say:
newlineMac = CR
newlineUnix = LF
anynewline = newlineMac / newlineUnix
i.e., with different rule names. Then you can say things in the
specification text, like "in UNIX environments, use newlineUnix...but
when reading data from an unknown source, use anynewline..." and be
More information about the rfc-interest