- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 00:03:42 -0400
- To: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 05/21/2012 07:50 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > I just updated ISSUE-114 [1] with what I believe should be the > allowed grammar for JSON-LD. Since it's quite a long list, I think > we should first discuss it directly in the issue instead of doing so > in a telecon. I numbered each statement so that it should be easy > enough to reference them. Re-wrote it a bit and added it to the spec... certainly not in it's final form, but it's a good start: http://json-ld.org/spec/ED/json-ld-syntax/20120522/#json-ld-grammar We need to discuss if EBNF is the best mechanism to express the grammar. It may be a bit too limiting/verbose? The issue is that JSON-LD is a subset of JSON, for which there exists some BNF... do we really want to go to the trouble of re-defining it in EBNF, especially if processors are going to attempt to correct "badly authored" documents anyway (and thus ignore the EBNF syntax we put in the spec)? I'm thinking, no... at this moment. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: PaySwarm Website for Developers Launched http://digitalbazaar.com/2012/02/22/new-payswarm-alpha/
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 04:04:33 UTC