Didn't you read the article I shared?

I read also the article “Don’t Use ISO/IEC 14977 Extended Backus-Naur Form (EBNF)”
by David A. Wheeler.
Some possibilities were pointed out as desirable improvements.

I actually wrote up the EBNF (ISO/IEC 14977) that was a good pazzle,
but just a toy.

I hope that this contribution can help to become more productive
in the discussed application domain.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/2/27/72
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1200987/
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/158278836196.14966.3881489301852781521.stgit@devnote2/ (local)

I found no one use it to define their data format, according to the article,
including ISO itself (lol!) and there are many local extension,
including W3C EBNF, and those say "I'm EBNF".

I suggest to reconsider the current situation.

Well, to say the least, I feel it is quite confused.

Such a view is reasonable.

So, if you are interested in it, I don't stop you to write it up.

Will the collaboration continue anyhow?

I just keep away from it.

This is a pity.


Will the clarification become more constructive for remaining challenges?

Regards,
Markus