Re: ABNF for fragment syntax

Yves,

Solid work! Just two minor comments:

a) Usually, one finds the top-level production at the beginning and the
'less important' ones (such as <DIGIT = %x30-39>, etc.) at the end. Any
concrete reason why you chose the bottom-up style?

b) When reading our MF ABNF in relation to the generic URI ABNF rules as of
RFC3985 [1], I was wondering if we need some more contextualisation? The
'Collected ABNF for URI' basically says:

URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]
fragment      = *( pchar / "/" / "?" )

and we start with

mediafragment = ( timefragment / spacefragment / trackfragment /
namefragment ) * ( "&" ( timefragment / spacefragment / trackfragment /
namefragment ) )

Where <mediafragment> per our ABNF == <fragment> per RFC3986, right?

c) Any good reason why you didn't introduce an intermediate for
(timefragment / spacefragment / trackfragment / namefragment) in the
top-level production rule? I guess it would increase the rule's readability
and increase reusability, no?

Again, thanks a lot Yves, great work. Minor issues, I guess, now ;)

Cheers,
      Michael

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#appendix-A

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan,
Galway, Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://sw-app.org/about.html
http://webofdata.wordpress.com/


> From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:12:58 -0500 (EST)
> To: <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
> Subject: ABNF for fragment syntax
> Resent-From: <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:13:09 +0000
> 
> Hi,
> To complete my action (ACTION-41), please find attached the first draft of
> the ABNF definition of the syntax.
> Cheers,
> 
> -- 
> Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
> 
>          ~~Yves

Received on Saturday, 21 February 2009 07:23:20 UTC