- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:10:57 +0000
- To: Markdown List <public-markdown@w3.org>
On 28 November 2012 18:01, Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 28 November 2012 17:17, David J. Weller-Fahy >> <dave-lists-public-markdown@weller-fahy.com> wrote: >> >> > EOL ::= (CR | LF | CR LF) >> >> Omits the LF CR option which is in the wiki markup I posted? >> > > I actually don't believe LF CR is a legal line termination anywhere. I can > imagine it being parseable, but consider the sequence > > CR LF CR LF (two blank lines) > > An LALR parser would work with ( CR LF | CR | LF ) and correctly capture two > newlines. With ( LR CR | CR LF | CR | LF ) it would / might capture three > lines. OK, if you're sure. > >> >> >> > >> > LB ::= (SP SP EOL) >> >> No, SP* EOL no max limit... Needs testing but I think WS may be valid too? >> Karl? >> I would prefer meaningful symbols rather than two letter ones.... nit >> picking though. > > > We can expand the symbol names. SP SP EOL is what the JG spec says is a > line break that is transformed into a <br />. It is still part of a > paragraph, and I agree that it is not required in the paragraph definition, > but I also think it is harmless. For consistency please. All inlines in one group? >> > >> > PARAPRE ::= (SP? SP? SP?) >> (sp){3} ??? syntax? Where to find an ebnf checker for W3C syntax > > > The XML simplified syntax doesn't permit that. Where are you getting your parser/checker please? > >> >> >> >> > >> > PARAPOST ::= ([^#x0020] SP) >> >> Whats this for? a para ends with para termination? >> Initially lets ignore 'inlines' such as <br/> till we are sure of basics? > > > Well - we can... But ([^#0020] SP?) correctly captures the JG document's > assertion that a paragraph ends with no more than a single space character. > On the other hand, since a BLANKLINE is required after the paragraph to > actually terminate, this is superfluous. I would remove the parapost and > just say TEXT EOL BLANKLINE Would you do it please, lets see it? post para should be superfluous, otherwise para termination isn't valid? >> > PARAGRAPH ::= (PARAPRE TEXT PARAPOST EOL BLANKLINE) >> >> Need to include 'inlines' with text. optional. > > > I think inlines are permitted in this definition - once we start to define > them we will need to expand the definition of TEXT to permit them, or use ( > TEXT | INLINE ) + Prefer it explicit, latter option - clarity when reading. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 18:11:25 UTC