Skip to content

Conversation

@eemeli
Copy link
Collaborator

@eemeli eemeli commented Jul 1, 2024

Fix for a part of #809, CC @lucacasonato

When parsing a complex message, we should be lenient about trailing whitespace, and silently ignore it. It has no meaning, and should not be considered an error.

None of the parser complexity concerns around leading whitespace apply here.

@eemeli eemeli added syntax Issues related with syntax or ABNF Agenda+ Requested for upcoming teleconference labels Jul 1, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@lucacasonato lucacasonato left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is good, but I think we should also do leading whitespace. From my implementation experience, this is a trivial to implement and can be implemented to be as fast as the current spec behavior.

@eemeli
Copy link
Collaborator Author

eemeli commented Jul 1, 2024

This is good, but I think we should also do leading whitespace. From my implementation experience, this is a trivial to implement and can be implemented to be as fast as the current spec behavior.

I completely agree, but I'd like to ensure that we at least get trailing whitespace rather than having this blocked by implementation or other concerns about mode detection with leading whitespace.

@aphillips aphillips added normative Issue affects normative text in the specification LDML46 labels Jul 1, 2024
@eemeli eemeli merged commit 661edfb into main Jul 8, 2024
@eemeli eemeli deleted the allow-trailing-spaces branch July 8, 2024 17:45
@eemeli eemeli added this to the LDML 46 milestone Jul 23, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Agenda+ Requested for upcoming teleconference normative Issue affects normative text in the specification syntax Issues related with syntax or ABNF

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants