> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Philippe Ombredanne > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 6:04 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: license expression syntax for exceptions [was: Re: Network > connection dropping....] > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:12 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Here is the revised syntax for ABNF, please let us know if there are >> any concerns. >> >> license-id = <short form license identifier in Appendix I.1> >> license-exception-id = <short form license exception identifier in >> Appendix I.2> >> license-ref = "LicenseRef-"1*(ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." ) >> simple-expression = license-id / license-id"+" / license-ref >> compound-expression = 1*(simple-expression / >> simple-expression "WITH" license-exception-id / >> compound-expression "AND" compound-expression / >> compound-expression "OR" compound-expression ) / "(" >> compound-expression ")" ) >> >> license-expression = 1*1(simple-expression / compound-expression) > > May I suggest this alternative and slightly different grammar: > > expression = license / and-expression / or-expression / > "(" expression ")" > and-expression = expression "AND" expression > or-expression = expression "OR" expression > > license = license-id / license-ref / license-with-exception > license-id = identifier["+"] ; short form SPDX license > identifier with optional + for "or later" > license-ref = "LicenseRef-"identifier > exception-id = identifier ; short form SPDX license > exception identifier > license-with-exception = (license-id / license-ref) "WITH" exception-id > > identifier = alphanum[*(aphanum / punct)] > alphanum = ALPHA / DIGIT > punct = "-" / "." > > The difference is that an identifier is defined as starting with a letter or > digit and this is specified for refs, id and an exception ids.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Gisi, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Philippe, >>> The difference is that an identifier is defined as starting with a letter >>> or digit and this is specified for refs, id and an exception ids. > Are you suggesting the current proposed grammar does not sufficiently > represent the lexical definition of what a license-id, license-ref and an > exception-id should be? At this stage It may be easier to understand what > you believe the current proposed grammar does not properly represent and see > if we can updated it to make it sufficient. Marc: you are entirely right. The proposed grammar is correct and sufficient. To sum it up on my side: 1. the proposed revised grammar as posted by Kate is fine 2. optionally, but that is not essential, we could enhance the grammar by adding some definition of what an identifier should be in a an id, a ref or an exception id as proposed above but this is not essential. Even if not formally defined, none would create an SPDX license id such as "." or "1" ... so this does not need to be specified. And even if this happened, this is not an issue per se. -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne _______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
