W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > July 2011

Re: ABNF definition of NPT temporal fragment times

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:59:07 +0200
To: public-media-fragment@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.vx6wktjwsr6mfa@kirk>
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:46:57 +0200, Chris Double <cdouble@mozilla.com>  

> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>  
> wrote:
>> I'm no ABNF master myself, but npttime here means that any of npt-sec,
>> npt-mmss or npt-hhmmss can match, so yes, if you think about the parser  
>> as
>> having a pointer into a string that you move forward, then you should
>> backtrack if npt-sec does not match.
> Right, my point is that npt-sec does match the string '10:20', in that
> it successfully matches the '10', it then goes back to the
> 'npttimedef' clause which fails on the presence of ':'. So it is
> 'npttimedef' that has failed, not npt-sec. We've gone beyond the
> 'npttime' clause here and would need to backtrack back into that.

I see. I tend to think of ABNF as a verbose form of a regular expression  
that also needs to consume the entire input, so as long as there is a  
possible match, it will be found. Something like  
/^(npt:)?(npt-sec|npt-mmss|npttime)$/ as a pseudo-regexp ignoring the  
second part.

So, since 10:20 is a valid production of npttimedef, a parser must match  

(I'm no fan of ABNF, since it can't actually express the two-level syntax  
with percent-encoding we have, anyway.)

Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2011 08:59:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:46 UTC