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

derhoermi at gmx.net (Bjoern Hoehrmann) Thu, 29 January 2015 06:11 UTC

From: "derhoermi at gmx.net"
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 07:11:54 +0100
Subject: [rfc-i] [Json] v3imp #8 Fragment tagging on sourcecode
In-Reply-To: <20150128232928.GL3110@localhost>
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> <20150128232928.GL3110@localhost>
Message-ID: <q3ijcalqfacu920uek6tnd7coml0gbsgf2@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Nico Williams wrote:
>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 very strongly urge to change this.
-- 
Bj?rn H?hrmann ? mailto:bjoern at hoehrmann.de ? http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
D-10243 Berlin ? PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ? http://www.bjoernsworld.de
 Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015)  ? http://www.websitedev.de/