Re: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation: bootconfig: Add EBNF syntax file

[Masami Hiramatsu]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:53:03 +0100
Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks for such a contribution.
> 
> 
> > Add an extended BackusâNaur form (EBNF) syntax file for
> 
> Can it matter to mention the specific file format specification version
> which should be applied finally?
> 
> Would you like to refer to any standard variant?

I choose ISO/IEC 14977 : 1996(E), but it seems no good.

Donât Use ISO/IEC 14977 Extended Backus-Naur Form (EBNF)
https://dwheeler.com/essays/dont-use-iso-14977-ebnf.html

I agree with this article. the ISO 14977 is halfway...
Not easy for human, but not good for machine too.
(at least it should support #xN as same as W3C BNF.

I'll drop it until rewriten by other standerd.

> > bootconfig so that user can logically understand how they
> 
> Wording alternative ââ that users can ââ?
> 
> 
> > can write correct boot configuration file.
> 
> Related development tools provide some benefits then, don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> â
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/bootconfig.ebnf
> â
> > +digit = "0" | "1" | "2" | "3" | "4" | "5" | "6" | "7" | "8" | "9" ;
> 
> Can the specification of such alternatives (or value ranges) become
> more compact (depending on a selected standard)?

W3C EBNF support it, ISO14977 doesn't.

> â
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/bootconfig.rst
> â
> > +Here is the boot configuration file syntax written in EBNF.
> 
> I suggest to replace the abbreviation âEBNFâ by the term âextended BackusâNaur formâ
> in such a sentence.

I think EBNF is enough.

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>