Despite how ugly (E)BNF may be, it's the standard format for defining the syntax of most prominent computer languages. It had the additional benefit of automatic conversion (via Bison or a similar program) into a native parser. Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > What the f* is an EBNF .. It does not help that you URL is wrong. Being > clever (ahum) I found Extended Backus–Naur form.. A question, do you > really think that an average Wiki editor will NOT get hopelessly > confused and get it hopelessly wrong as well? > > Personally I find it horribly ugly as well > > Thanks, > GerardM > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitext_Metasyntax > > > Virgil Ierubino schreef: > >> I'm working on writing out an EBNF description of Wikitext at >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wikiWikitext_Metasyntax , which I hear is much >> needed, but have encountered a snag. I don't think EBNF has the power to >> describe Wikitext. If anyone here can work out how EBNF can describe >> Wikitext's system for bullet points, I'd like to see it. The problem is that >> bullet points can build on each other, except each new level has to retain >> the markup from the old level, plus a new symbol. e.g. **#* then **#* * then >> **#** * then **#*** # etc. >> >> On the topic of "things that need to be done" if writing an EBNF of Wikitext >> isn't going to be beneficial for MediaWiki's longstanding success, I'll not >> bother, but is there anything that needs to be done like this to create a >> standard? >> >> Please forward to any other mailing lists in which this might be >> appropriate. Thanks!

On 1/22/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: EBNF is not a replacement for or variation of wikisyntax. It's a different approach for a parser that understands the /current/ wikisyntax. That would * clean up the mess that is the current parser * allow the parser to be generated from EBNF automatically in C/C++/C#/Perl/whatever * ease generation of different output formats, such as XML (or PDF or docbook or...) * avoid most of those little implementation bugs that come with manual parser writing Magnus _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi, What the f* is an EBNF .. It does not help that you URL is wrong. Being clever (ahum) I found Extended Backus–Naur form.. A question, do you really think that an average Wiki editor will NOT get hopelessly confused and get it hopelessly wrong as well? Personally I find it horribly ugly as well

On 1/22/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: Virgil did not even hint at the fact that this is to be used by editors. You assumed that and it's most probably a wrong assumption. Maybe it's for developers? Maybe it's for research and comparison with other similar markups? Maybe it's just for the fun of it? Personally, I'm intrigued. Virgil, could you elaborate on the purpose of this project? In what ways can it help us (and who exactly is the 'us' in this case :))?

Virgil Ierubino wrote: [fixed URL] If you can find an EBNF description of HTML, it would be a good place to start; in my experience, MediaWiki's Wikitext syntax is (mostly) directly translatable to HTML (eg. links turn into anchors, bullets turn into list items). It /might/ be useful if you wanted to import/export between different wiki engines that use different syntax - IIRC the MediaWiki syntax is (fairly) similar to that of UseModWiki (Phase 1), but vastly different to that of eg. DocuWiki. However, I wouldn't rate it very high on the priority list. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l