- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 18:53:47 +0800
- To: "'Linked JSON'" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
> 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 OK.. there are some errors though. I added a link to the issue and will fix those errors in the coming days. > 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. Not sure.. let's see what the RDF WG says in that regard. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 10:54:45 UTC