issues
search
cbor-wg
/
update-8610-grammar
Update errata and other small fixes for the ABNF grammar defined for CDDL in RFC 8610
Other
0
stars
0
forks
source link
issues
Newest
Newest
Most commented
Recently updated
Oldest
Least commented
Least recently updated
Security considerations: Explain how the need for provenance...
#17
cabo
closed
4 months ago
0
Explain the structure of the document in the intro.
#16
cabo
closed
4 months ago
0
Avoid "we" except in the acknowledgements.
#15
cabo
closed
4 months ago
0
Move details about Errata Reports covered by 2.1 to new appendix B
#14
cabo
closed
4 months ago
0
Avoid CS jargon "production" and use STD68 terminology "rule"
#13
cabo
closed
4 months ago
0
Don't use "Old" in captions (and labels), clarify what are updates..
#12
cabo
closed
4 months ago
0
Add example showing various escaping techniques
#11
cabo
closed
5 months ago
0
Replace unexplained compatibility notation by explicit explanation
#10
cabo
closed
5 months ago
0
Say that Appendix A is normative.
#9
cabo
closed
5 months ago
0
Add #7.<x> syntax for simple values.
#8
cabo
closed
8 months ago
0
Add Unicode scalar hex escapes (\u{1F913} for 🤓) to SESC syntax
#7
cabo
closed
9 months ago
0
Cover more errata reports (close #5)
#6
cabo
closed
10 months ago
1
Have other errata been considered?
#5
chrysn
closed
10 months ago
0
Close #3: ABNF has =/, not /=
#4
cabo
closed
10 months ago
0
ABNF: CDDLism
#3
chrysn
closed
10 months ago
6
ABNF trouble
#2
chrysn
closed
10 months ago
3
Shepherd review
#1
cabo
closed
10 months ago
0