Re: [Json] draft-williams-json-text-sequence-00

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:41 PM, John Cowan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Nico Williams scripsit:
>
> > Just submitted.
>
> 1) Your terminology of "online parsers" and "incremental parsers"
> is very confusing.  What you call an "online parser", I would call a
> "streaming parser", because it returns portions of arrays, objects, and
> possibly even strings as a stream of events.  Your "incremental parser"
> is simply a parser that stops reading when it reaches the end of a JSON
> text without insisting that there be no additional characters.
>
> 2) The sentence "Encoders MUST emit" should refer explicitly to
> the grammar.  Currently the grammar is completely unmoored from the
> requirements.  "Encoders MUST emit JSON text sequences that conform to
> the ABNF" is sufficient.
>
> 3) The sentence "Two contiguous separators do not" is unnecessary,
> because there are no empty JSON texts.
>
> 4) In "Parsers MUST be able", for "to parser" read "to parse".  But as
> in #2, this should simply say "Parsers MUST be able to parse any text
> conforming to the ABNF" for the same reasons.
>
> 5) The recommendation seems entirely unnecessary to me.
>
> 6) I still don't see that there is any ambiguity in "truefalse" considered
> as two JSON-texts.  So I would strip "Parsers MAY parse" to just say
> "sequences where the separators are missing."  Note that such sequences
> don't conform anyway.
>
> 7) If you want newline-free JSON-texts to be in serious use, the second
> MAY should be promoted to a SHOULD.


I am thinking that the best way to show off JSON sequence would be to
update this draft from '96

http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-logfile.html

It is a widely used format but it has problems, every entry has to specify
entries for precisely the set of data advertised at the start.

I am thinking of redoing the spec in JSON using the same tags to identify
the data elements.


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/