- From: Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:28:26 -0600
- To: public-markdown@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 15:28:53 UTC
I am sure we will need an EBNF. It isn't that awful. But it will be hard for people not familiar with EBNF to read / review. On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:21 AM, David J. Weller-Fahy < dave-lists-public-markdown@weller-fahy.com> wrote: > * Ryan Freebern <rfreebern@unionstmedia.com> [2012-11-28 09:36 -0500]: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:05 AM, David J. Weller-Fahy < > dave-lists-public-markdown@weller-fahy.com> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > You know, I actually considered that approach early on, and decided to > hold off to see how things went. But I think it may be necessary. > > -- > dave [ please don't CC me ] > -- Shane P. McCarron Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 15:28:53 UTC