search

ietf-wg-jsonpath / draft-ietf-jsonpath-base

Development of a JSONPath internet draft
https://ietf-wg-jsonpath.github.io/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/
Other
59 stars 20 forks source link

Add an appendix with collected ABNF grammar #498

Closed cabo closed 1 year ago

cabo commented 1 year ago

We don't have to merge this, but this PR shows how to do it.

timbray commented 1 year ago

So, what should the RFC Editor do?

On Aug 8, 2023 at 12:26:27 AM, cabo @.***> wrote:

We don't have to merge this, but this PR shows how to do it.

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/498 Commit Summary

File Changes

(4 files https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/498/files )

Patch Links:

- https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/498.patch

https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/498.diff

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/498, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAEJE4B53HL5QDQYTZX2G3XUHS2HANCNFSM6AAAAAA3IA4A4E . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

cabo commented 1 year ago

So, what should the RFC Editor do?

Well, I hope they don't have to do anything, as the ABNF is already fixed. But if they do, it would be good if they did the AUTH48 in markdown, as recently has been done a number of times as an experiment. Of course, we don't have a right to be part of such an experiment, but then RPC knows us well.

glyn commented 1 year ago

We don't have to merge this, but this PR shows how to do it.

BTW I really like this PR and think we should merge it. It's a convenience to certain users of the spec at very little cost to us or readers who are not interested in the collected ABNF.

cabo commented 1 year ago

(Based on an ARTART review comment by Darrel Miller.)