Re: [markdown-testsuite] Add End Of Line (EOL) definition/tests. (#1)

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:05 AM, David J. Weller-Fahy <
dave-lists-public-markdown@weller-fahy.com> wrote:

> Ah, I think here we're getting to the crux of the miscommunication.
>
> * Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com> [2012-11-28 08:53 -0500]:
> > Le 28 nov. 2012 à 22:37, Dave Pawson a écrit :
> > > As I've said Karl, I don't think there is a single valid block
> > > terminator.
> >
> > It is not about block terminator. :)
> > It is about newline or EOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newline
> >
> > These are two different topics
>
> Karl hit most of this, but I want to clarify (to make sure we are all on
> the same page, or at least in the same chapter ;).  In the
> syntax/semantics wiki page, an end of paragraph is defined as below.
>
>         \n\ws*\n | \n\ws*EOF | EOF
>
> The problem is that \n is a specific character, or at least is *used* as
> a specific character in many settings, it represents Line Feed (LF,
> U+000A).  I think you are using it as a generic "this is the end of the
> line" sequence, but in common use it means U+000A.  That is why the
> definition for end of paragraph is not OS agnostic, it won't work on
> Windows in some cases, and on old Macs in others.
>
> By defining EOL as I have, we have something to replace the use of \n
> within block terminations, but which applies to almost all end of line
> standards in use today.
>
> By the way, I am in no way committed to the particular name used, we can
> call it something other than "EOL" if you'd prefer, but we should not
> use standard representations of single characters (\n) to represent a
> generic OS agnostic sequence (the end of a line).
>
> Does that make more sense?
>

This leads me to consider the applicability of an explicit EBNF grammar.
Would that be opening a can of worms?

Ryan