On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:53:03 +0100 Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@xxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks for such a contribution. > > > > Add an extended Backus–Naur 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. Don’t 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 “… that users can …”? > > > > can write correct boot configuration file. > > Related development tools provide some benefits then, don't they? > > > > … > > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/bootconfig.ebnf > … > > +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. > … > > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/bootconfig.rst > … > > +Here is the boot configuration file syntax written in EBNF. > > I suggest to replace the abbreviation “EBNF” by the term “extended Backus–Naur form” > in such a sentence. I think EBNF is enough. Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
