Roll up

[cabo]

Pull in Section 8 of RFC 8949 and Appendix G of RFC 8610 so we indeed have a single document defining EDN (minus EDN extensions).

Work in progress.

[OR13]

it might be good to name these features or omit this

[cabo]

Done (not all features, just two examples).

[rohanmahy]

Hi, Thank you Carsten for getting the ball rolling on this. I have not had time go over this in detail yet, but I think getting consensus on an outline/document flow is great. I was pleased with the discussion between you and Joe H on that topic and feel that that work is yielding good results.

On a separate note, I think a lot of the material in the Abstract is more appropriate in the Introduction. For the Abstract, I propose the following radically shorter text:

"The Compact Binary Object Representation (CBOR) specification includes an informal description of a diagnostic notation, which was augmented over time and is now know as Extended Diagnostic Notation (EDN). This document consolidates previous descriptions of EDN into a formal specification, preserves backwards compatibility with most instance documents, adds requested features which are already implemented, and introduces a limited extensibility mechanism."

Then I think the Introduction would be best split into the material that explains the goals of EDN, how it is related to CBOR, where it is used, that JSON is a strict subset, and summarizes the features in the current incarnation. I would put the "how we got here" material into an "Historical Background" subsection of the Introduction.

I hope this helps.
thanks,
-rohan

[cabo]

On a separate note, [...]

Thank you for this feedback.

I generally write introductory material twice:

• Once to make up my mind what I want to write
• Once after I have written the main document and know what the introductory material should have said.

We aren't at the second point yet.

I opened issue #66 and #67 so we don't forget this when we get there.