[RFC] TOML v0.4.x grammar in ABNF

[ghost]

This is a specification for the supposed TOML v0.4.x in ABNF.

Basically it is based on v0.4.0, or it is just what I think v0.4.0 should be. Nothing new is added to the grammar. But this is the best I can do to clarify my idea. And I think these grammar rules are quite concise and not hard to understand.

I hope this can help to establish the new TOML v1.0.0 in the future. Welcome to criticize the grammar here!

Ping: #236 #330

[ghost]

/cc @mojombo @BurntSushi

[karupanerura]

👍

[Profpatsch]

There is another, more recent try: #236

[ghost]

@Profpatsch I know, and the grammar file and discussions there are a little messy, so I write my own with more details.

[ghost]

Closed because I think TOML is not smart enough. There is still time to make a good new format.

[Profpatsch]

@jakwings Interesting, what brings you to that conclusion?

[ghost]

First, the most important reason: TOML is not that popular and easy to parse as I think and there are still many variants of ini format (for ease of use, performance rather than consistency). Everyone can learn the basics of ini-like format in a few minutes. If TOML can't be the best default, and it is really easy to write a parser, why should I stick to it?

Biggest flaws in TOML: DateTime; not easy to parse [[section array]]; T.
(I won't discuss here.)

[Profpatsch]

I see.

[TerjeBr]

Why not allow all unicode letter characters?

http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/category/index.htm

Just include all unicode classes with the name Letter, < something >

[ghost]

Well, you'd better ask the original designers of TOML 0.4.0, because I just wanted to get more details of 0.4.0 depicted.
PS. The chart of Unicode characters is just a mess. Be careful. Also, my grammar still has bugs, but I've no interest to improve it any more.