[Json] ABNF formatting

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Thu, 10 October 2013 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
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 3581421E815B for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 xosfTd6VfsLl for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f51.google.com (mail-vb0-f51.google.com [209.85.212.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FC8F21E80B2 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id x16so2230014vbf.10 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=SzLI250pYyrb2mtlAsVO5CzQlRljbSiAfmFuRo5RHCk=; b=U3KZbXQJ6YPMaOvJXOmYd8OpArBhvNB3fiQaRwgGOpLfIGAEbMPwiqcbLbEWSWgfA+ bjZfp/hAsoEiUuXArwq5yhtZe5T3Hub3jjhF/E61XMd1EcMjh6B7Saoh0uyzu9ZGZqbz 7qg4iAI6CuQQS2kLhSHvVPOLoOiB5AANpFZko85nmR8DZTXpH6MVW0gAJwZlF9lTZBJw /2w4ZZDE8CZtynosMSj774axqXBzb4uDhutYMGuOAJORoZ4zb0JUu8PWQ1rggDzQhYPf kyuLXmPbwA4bypWKulSnA/Yv0WFN/GcHCZmmeTekLiCz5sCzY+AnCPP0K6QQ5oaRa92D 3OnQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl7SL67XoyjvXm5aK+BSXZY9QezESmfqs131E1Vp2aHQziSSLIK9tsqhFYkV4R18FehzQrQ
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.236.196 with SMTP id uw4mr10233040vdc.96.1381446396631; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176]
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:06:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6ivyKWF9u638E7xGu=_b1Ug+Tgm0iURHbfBRtVPMqqdy+w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01176227bf758804e86b0d72
Subject: [Json] ABNF formatting
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, 10 Oct 2013 23:06:43 -0000

Hey,  the formatting on the “ws” production in the draft ABNF looks
gross... my inclination would be to move the closing paren up after %x0D.
But I’m not an IETF-ABNF-formatting expert. If there are any of those out
there, maybe you could have an opinion on this and cast a critical eye
around and shout about anything else that needs polishing?