IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Update reference for ABNF

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 06 June 2013 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA4FD21F971F for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 09:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ivh4-JXMpxLi for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 09:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B75521F9A0D for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 09:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r56Gkuw4000863; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 18:46:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from 216.xarxa-10-83-85.eduroam.upc.edu (cisne-cn09.upc.es [147.83.182.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 61CA03EBD; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 18:46:56 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <2E0B8DF9-BF9F-485E-B011-D9864C4DB875@vpnc.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:46:55 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C8675622-C77B-4595-B8E7-3E2063094116@tzi.org>
References: <51AF9D4C.5060403@crockford.com> <60563185-85A8-4696-8B8C-9282256CFA71@vpnc.org> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1151B10582A@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <19943667-1EC6-427F-9122-EC037BDE47F1@vpnc.org> <51AFEC73.1030904@crockford.com> <2484862A-4DFF-44D7-9D9D-7E44520C5BED@vpnc.org> <51B06A44.1070008@crockford.com> <2E0B8DF9-BF9F-485E-B011-D9864C4DB875@vpnc.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: Douglas Crockford <douglas@crockford.com>, json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Update reference for ABNF
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 16:47:24 -0000

On Jun 6, 2013, at 17:32, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> Will one or more of you who care about good ABNF volunteer to do careful checks against RFC 5234?

Well, so far I only checked that 5234 is not worse for 4627bis than 4234.
But I can also volunteer to torture-test the ABNF itself.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email