Carsten Bormann <> Wed, 12 June 2013 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C781D21E808B for <>; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.866
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.866 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gWq9BzBEucTM for <>; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A177A21E8092 for <>; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5CIGbRu005013 for <>; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 20:16:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 373663DE6; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 20:16:37 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 20:16:36 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: "" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Subject: Re: [Json] ABNF nits -- LAST CHANCE ON PROPOSALS
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 18:16:45 -0000

On Jun 12, 2013, at 17:19, Stefan Drees <> wrote:

> Wouldn't it be better

Well, I apologize for making editorial comments on the ABNF.  
We have more important things to decide right now; I was incited by the "LAST CHANCE" message.

The single-level grammars created by RFC 5234 ABNF are generally a lot better for describing protocols than the scanner/parser grammar pairs used by programming language standards (like ECMAscript).  ABNF tends to be a bit verbose around the optional whitespace, but I think Douglas has hit this nail on the head with the single exception that he maybe should have called ws ows (optional white space).
For the reasons I gave, changing this is only worth it if we are changing a lot of the rest.

Norbert's observation of course is spot on; I must admit I didn't read the comments at all.
(Maybe we can avoid writing the somewhat disconnected U+YYYYYY, though, and instead point to the fourth paragraph of 2.5, "U+XXXX or part of a surrogate pair, see Section 2.5".)

Grüße, Carsten