Re: [Json] Seeking more input on draft-ietf-json-text-sequence

[Stefan Drees <[e-mail]>]

On 2014-05-14 20:32 +01:00, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings again. Wearing my chair hat, I encourage people in the
> group(especially you quiet types) to review this WG draft and let the WG know
> what you think. The idea of JSON text sequences has many applications,
> and folks have invented things like this in the past for their own
> internal purposes. We would like to make sure that this document covers
> as many use cases as possible.
>
> --Paul Hoffman

I like to understand grammars also bottom up - which might qualify as a 
lexer's perspective - overlapping rules like the one for ws1 and ws2 in 
the suggested grammar do not really make things clearer for me. 
Additionally the reader will benefit from the expressed clear 
assumption, how these ws(''|1|2) relate to each other.

So, I suggest to change (as found in draft-02):

# --- 8< ----
2.  JSON Text Sequence Format

    The ABNF [RFC5234] for the JSON text sequence format is as follows:

      JSON-sequence = *ws1 *(JSON-text *ws2 %x0A *ws1)
      ws1 = %x20 / %x09 / %x0A / %x0D
      ws2 = %x20 / %x09 / %x0D
      JSON-text = <given by RFC7159>

                      Figure 1: JSON text sequence ABNF

# --- 8< ----

into either:

# --- 8< ----
2.  JSON Text Sequence Format

    The ABNF [RFC5234] for the JSON text sequence format is as follows:

      JSON-sequence = *(ws-no-nl
                        / nl) *(JSON-text *ws-no-nl nl *(ws-no-nl / nl))
      nl = %x0A
      ws-no-nl = ( %x20 / %x09 / %x0D )
      JSON-text = <given by RFC7159>

                      Figure 1: JSON text sequence ABNF

    When combining the grammars, the rule for ws in the JSON-text is
    therefore equivalent to *( ws-without-newline / newline )

# --- 8< ----

or less cryptic but wrapped some more:

# --- 8< ----
2.  JSON Text Sequence Format

    The ABNF [RFC5234] for the JSON text sequence format is as follows:

      JSON-sequence = *(
         ws-without-newline /
         newline ) *( JSON-text *ws-without-newline newline *(
             ws-without-newline / newline ) )
      newline = %x0A
      ws-without-newline = ( %x20 / %x09 / %x0D )
      JSON-text = <given by RFC7159>

                      Figure 1: JSON text sequence ABNF

    When combining the grammars, the production for ws in the JSON-text
    is therefore equivalent to *( ws-without-newline / newline )

# --- 8< ----

  ... but I am *not* passionate about this.

It is just that the mix of optional sets, where one is a proper subset 
of the other to me smells very implicit, where being explicit (choosing 
a direct decomopsition like "X/x and x" to me reads well and is not that 
much longer.

What do the others think?

PS: If the parentheses in the simple rules do not match our current 
styleguide, just remove them, it is the decomposition I am interested in.

All the best,
Stefan

> On May 9, 2014, at 10:31 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the JavaScript Object Notation Working Group of the IETF.
>>
>>         Title           : JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Text Sequences
>>         Author          : Nicolas Williams
>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-02.txt
>> 	Pages           : 10
>> 	Date            : 2014-05-09
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    This document describes the JSON text sequence format and associated
>>    media type.
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-json-text-sequence/
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-02
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-02
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>