- From: Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:40:14 -0600
- To: public-markdown@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 15:40:50 UTC
Yes, that's correct. On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:35 AM, David J. Weller-Fahy < dave-lists-public-markdown@weller-fahy.com> wrote: > * Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com> [2012-11-28 10:37 -0500]: > > 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. > > As I understant it, usually there is an EBNF section. So there would > still be a textual description, but the EBNF would be considered the > authoritative source, right? > > Regards, > -- > dave [ please don't CC me ] > -- Shane P. McCarron Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 15:40:50 UTC