Skip to content

Should one or two reserved sigils be available for implementation use? #378

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
eemeli opened this issue Apr 17, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #404
Closed

Should one or two reserved sigils be available for implementation use? #378

eemeli opened this issue Apr 17, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #404
Labels
Agenda+ Requested for upcoming teleconference blocker-candidate The submitter thinks this might be a block for the next release

Comments

@eemeli
Copy link
Collaborator

eemeli commented Apr 17, 2023

As discussed in #374 (comment):

@eemeli: Should we include some explicit language about whether implementations are allowed to define their own meanings for parts of the reserved space?

@aphillips: We should not allow that unless we specifically reserve one or more sigils for private use. It was on my mind writing this to propose private use, but I deferred those thoughts in favor of getting this in.

What we don't want is for vendor foo to use (let's say) ~ for private use and then MF2.1 to adopt ~ for something else. Private agreement is another thing and leaving room for that is probably a Good Idea.
@eemeli eemeli mentioned this issue Apr 17, 2023
Merged
@aphillips aphillips added blocker-candidate The submitter thinks this might be a block for the next release Agenda+ Requested for upcoming teleconference labels Jun 4, 2023
@aphillips
Copy link
Member

This will require making private separate from (and equal to) reserved, e.g.:

annotation = (function *(s option)) / private / reserved
; reserve sigils for private agreement use
; the contents of both 'private' and 'reserved' are undefined so that
;   implementations are free to define whatever they need
private        = private-start reserved-body
private-start  = "&" / "@" / "~" ; semi-random choices :-)
; reserve additional sigils for future use
reserved       = reserved-start reserved-body
reserved-start = "!" / "#" / "%" / "^" / "*" / "<" / ">" / "?"

@macchiati
Copy link
Member

At least some people have misinterpreted the term 'reserved' in other contexts as meaning 'reserved for anyone to use'. Best to explicitly say:

; reserve additional sigils for future versions of this specification

@eemeli eemeli mentioned this issue Jun 30, 2023
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Agenda+ Requested for upcoming teleconference blocker-candidate The submitter thinks this might be a block for the next release
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Specify private reserved sigils ^ and & eemeli/message-format-wg
3 participants
@aphillips @eemeli @macchiati