On Monday, January 07, 2013 7:30 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote: > AFAIK, W3C standard is EBNF, and I did make an attempt at an EBNF > grammar some time ago, but the consensus of the group was that this > wasn't too useful. The fact that it's JSON, and pretty much every > implementation will use a JSON parser and iterate of the resulting > objects, I still think this is probably not too useful for the purposes > of implementing a processor. Right. That's the reason why I didn't use EBNF. I wouldn't like to include rules to parse JSON itself, just the grammar on top of JSON but unfortunately there doesn't exist such a thing yet. > However, I can see that laying out different node types, and what the > expected key/value pairs that can be expected. As you note, we do this > in prose now, but something that is more visual might be easier for > people to understand. For this purpose, we can probably invent our own > nomenclature, as long as it's consistent and light-weight. What you > have below is pretty easy to understand, IMO. That's the intent behind it. While you are implementing a JSON-LD processor, validator, linter etc. you probably quite often need to check what's allowed and what's not. Reading through prose isn't really productive and you risk missing some details. That's why I tried to come up with something more formal and condensed. Cheers, Markus -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthalerReceived on Tuesday, 8 January 2013 11:17:46 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:35 UTC