- From: Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 01:58:11 -0400
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
What I think is that even if an ABNF won't be the normative definition of a syntax format, it can help put the format's syntax into a higher-level perspective and aid understanding of its syntax: once we understand, for example, what the Content-Type header field value ought to contain, in the form of an ABNF or in some other way, it will be easier to write processing rules for that field value in the spec. (Right now I'm in the process of rewriting section 5 of the MIME sniffing spec.) Take the WebVTT spec for example. For each part of the WebVTT format there's a definition of what that part contains in terms of characters, and the actual processing rules for parsing that part. For example, the definition for "WebVTT cue timings" and the algorithm to "collect WebVTT cue timings and settings." The definition aids understanding of the syntax for WebVTT cue timings and informs how the rules for collecting WebVTT cue timings are written in the WebVTT spec. --Peter -----Original Message----- From: Anne van Kesteren Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 1:28 AM To: Peter Occil Cc: WHATWG Subject: Re: [whatwg] An alternative approach to section 9 of Mime Sniffing On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com> wrote: > Explain further why you don't recommend ABNF for this case. We don't recommend ABNF in general because often ABNF results in a mismatch between prescribed and actual processing. E.g. Content-Type is defined as an ABNF and technically "text/html;" does not match that ABNF, but everyone (logically) processes that as "text/html" without parameters. It's much better to define the actual processing so implementers are less inclined to take shortcuts when implementing (test suites also help, but they're typically written way-after-the-fact). > You should also explain whether another change to make section 9 more > readable is > appropriate (though it currently is relatively readable as is). I'll leave that to Gordon. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Saturday, 25 May 2013 05:58:47 UTC