W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-markdown@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Markdown grammar definition language

From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 07:42:48 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEncD4eOwcYY1Z0xCHV+vn6-WOrrCDQrcd5T5j5uA-C7dqWt_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-markdown@w3.org
Cc: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Your comment re joining copied to W3C Chris

On 19 December 2012 20:06, Chris Maloney <voldrani@gmail.com> wrote:

> My opinion is that just because John MacFarlane found two edge cases that
> PEG couldn't handle, doesn't mean that you should throw the baby out with
> the bathwater.  PEG + English is probably the best way to go.  Clearly PEG
> is a better choice than EBNF, and *much* better than plain English (which
> would be very difficult to get free of ambiguities), or a reference
> implementation (which would be opaque to humans and difficult to maintain).
> Maybe there is a way to define a PEG+ variant to handle the edge cases.

1. For the core profile we should be able to avoid edge cases.

Try writing PEG for a para, no inlines, terminated with \n\n Chris, if that's
something you could do.

Question. With EBNF we can generate a parser directly. Is that the
case with PEG?


Dave Pawson
Docbook FAQ.
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2012 07:43:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:54:34 UTC