[Cbor] Re: EDN redux

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 2024-08-07, at 17:07, Rohan Mahy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Since you have gone so far as to propose no ABNF, a radically simple solution would be to not allow extensibility of app-strings. Define a set of them now and be done.

I don’t think you understand what this document is about.
Adding this extension point is the whole point of the draft.
The ABNF is ancillary to that, but of course useful in its own right.

The need for this extension point is rather native to the CBOR representation format, which has a related extension point in its “tags", and so far was missing a way to address the need for a notation for some of these extensions.
(Getting the “tags" extension point accepted in 2013 was a bit of work, because nobody had done things quite like that before, so I’m having a little deja vu here.)

I don’t understand how the convictions you have about the use of ABNF should prevent this rather natural addition to the CBOR ecosystem.

The extension point is more important than the ABNF grammar.
Also, the work on the ABNF grammar is done and can easily be used by implementers that want to base their implementations on ABNF.
Still, removing the ABNF grammar would create a ton of editorial busywork, with significant editorial hazards, so I’d rather keep it in place.

We are discussing the exposition of a feature (how exactly should ABNF be used in operating this extension point).  There is no argument at all that this exposition cannot be understood.  So I’d prefer if you gave up your concerns that are entirely foreign to the work at hand.

Grüße, Carsten