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

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Stefan Drees <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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.

I'm open to rewriting it but... there are many ways to do it and I
don't really want to bikeshed the grammar -- it's enough to make sure
it's correct.

> So, I suggest to change (as found in draft-02):
> [...]

My counter:

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

or, since I agree with you about giving %xXX names:

  JSON-sequence = *ws-LF *(JSON-text *ws-no-LF %x0A *ws-LF)
  ascii-SP = %x20
  ascii-HT = %x09
  ascii-CR = %x0D
  ascii-LF = %x0A
  ws-no-LF = ascii-SP / ascii-HT / ascii-CR
  ws-LF = ws-no-LF /  ascii-LF ; same as ws in RFC7159
  JSON-text = <given by RFC7159>

Or we could use pre-defined rules from RFC5234:

  ; SP HTAB CR LF are defined in RFC5234
  JSON-sequence = *ws-LF *(JSON-text *ws-no-LF %x0A *ws-LF)
  ws-no-LF = SP HTAB CR
  ws-LF = ws-no-LF /  LF ; same as ws in RFC7159
  JSON-text = <given by RFC7159>

But maybe we should use ws from RFC7159, or maybe we shouldn't given
single characters names but instead name them in comments like RFC7159
does:

  JSON-sequence = *ws-LF *(JSON-text *ws-no-LF %x0A *ws-LF)
  ws-no-nl = SP HTAB CR
  ws-LF = ws ; ws is defined in RFC7159
  JSON-text = <given by RFC7159>

There's a lot of variations.  I see you refer to a styleguide -- is there one?

> What do the others think?

It's just a grammar :)

Nico
--