[rfc-i] [Json] v3imp #8 Fragment tagging on sourcecode

nico at cryptonector.com (Nico Williams) Wed, 28 January 2015 23:29 UTC

From: "nico at cryptonector.com"
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 17:29:32 -0600
Subject: [rfc-i] [Json] v3imp #8 Fragment tagging on sourcecode
In-Reply-To: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1284EB0326B@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
References: <54C3BE06.8010707@alum.mit.edu> <54C3C6A3.6080003@seantek.com> <54C3CF7F.6090901@seantek.com> <54C4AFF1.6030608@gmx.de> <54C7FAD7.7040500@alum.mit.edu> <54C870B5.7000205@seantek.com> <20150128173229.GC3110@localhost> <54C9632A.2040204@seantek.com> <20150128230227.GG3110@localhost> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1284EB0326B@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
Message-ID: <20150128232928.GL3110@localhost>

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:25:34AM +1100, Manger, James wrote:
> >> Overall I still stand by my proposition that the RFC is the module 
> >> for ABNF purposes. Honestly it just makes things a lot simpler.
> 
> > Well, draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-13 will break this proposition.
> 
> > But this issue (two ABNF rules with the same name) was raised earlier, and no one thought it was a problem.
> 
> The issued was raised because someone did think it was a problem.

I typed too quickly.  I mean that no one thought the change had to be
made.

I still don't think so, not on account of a heretofore non-existent (and
inelegant) rule that there be at most one ABNF "module" per-RFC.