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

On 28 November 2012 18:05, David J. Weller-Fahy
<dave-lists-public-markdown@weller-fahy.com> wrote:

>> > 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.
>
> Hrm... it was my understanding that a line break (HTML: <br />) would
> replace two spaces at the end of a line.  Have to look that one up.

IMHO that is an inline... lets insert it when we have other inlines defined?
Agreed it needs to be somewhere on the border of text and eoln... but
I'd rather get the basics down then work up to it if that's OK?
We've no agreement on <br/>



>
>> > PARAPRE ::= (SP? SP? SP?)
>> (sp){3}  ??? syntax? Where to find an ebnf checker for W3C syntax
>
> 0-3 spaces, and there is no (at the page I linked to) way to specify a
> certain number of symbols, which is why I used the method I did.
OK


>
>> > 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?
>
> This means the last two characters of a paragraph can be either a
> non-space and a space, or a non-space.

I don't think that specifies it?
([^0x20] sp) | [^0x20]  how about that?

A para can end on Text, \n\n i.e. no white space at the end?
You say 'can', without marking it as optional?


  That covers the "paragraph
> cannot end with more than one space", but it is not the paragraph
> termination.

I can't parse that sentence?

  Although it could be elided with no damage to the rest,
> we'd just ignor line breaks for now.

Something smelly David? Can I review it once you've removed <br/> syntax please?




>
>> > BLANKLINE ::= (WS* EOL)

Ah, missed EOF? blank line could terminate on eof.



>
>> > How does that look?  I used the code-points inside brackets, because
>> > [1] doesn't indicate that symbols may be used inside brackets.
>>
>> I think it's expressions inside braces, code points / symbols inside
>> []
>
> Hrm... I'll have to get clarity on that point, as I usually take the
> definition of EBNF to be: If it doesn't explicitly say it, you can't do
> it.  I didn't see any use of symbols within square brackets, just
> parentheses.


http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#Notations  XML 1.1 look at char syntax


Moving on.

Thanks.


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 18:19:11 UTC