Re: ABNF for fragment syntax

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, Michael Hausenblas wrote:

>
> 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?

in fact, those ones should be imported from 3986, I prefer to show 
external dependencies upfront, but that's just a matter of 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?

yes, I used mediafragment there as we might use this also for query URI, 
to construct first-class URIs for "fragments" (as fragment is heavily 
overloaded, we might find another word to describe parts of a document)

> 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?

something like fragmentaxis ? In a way it would make harder the definition 
of constraints between the different combinations of time/space/track 
fragments. But as is it messy anyway, and only prose will save us from 
outlining all the different ordered combinations...

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

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves

Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 15:45:15 UTC