- From: James Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:44:36 +0200
- To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Cc: public-microxml@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:08 AM, James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> wrote: > At the moment, the spec uses the same notation as the XML Rec to describe > the syntax. Since we don't want to depend on the XML Rec, and the XML Rec's > notation is not standardized anywhere, this means we need to have a > substantial section of the spec that specifies this notation. > > Another possibility would be to use the standard IETF syntax notation, ABNF, > which is described in its own RFC, RFC 5234. This would have the advantage > that we could eliminate the notation section in favour of a reference to RFC > 5234. The JSON RFC, for example, uses ABNF. However, ABNF has a couple of > limitations that would make it a bit inconvenient. Most importantly, it > doesn't have the difference operator (- in our notation), which we rely on > quite heavily. Also literal strings in ABNF are case-insensitive; if you > want a case-sensitive string, then you have to spell out it out in hex. > > Any opinions? I am a fan of making the spec concise (and short), but conversely it does not make sense choosing ABNF for the issues you have aptly highlighted. I always thought one of the challenges of generating a spec is ensuring all consumers are comfortable with reading it. In this case, I would stump for pushing all normative references and definitions to the end of the document as a 'normative' appendix; those who are not interested in such things are not forced to wade through 'legalise' in the body of the spec. J
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 07:45:08 UTC