On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 10:39:55AM +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
More complicated things might be a little harder, but
pretty much
anything is possible to describe unambiguously in wikisyntax, so once
we determine what each weird sequence should mean, it can be rewritten
more clearly (for example, don't allow any nesting at all, and treat
bold italic as a separate 3rd format).
Nope, other than it doesn't require
processing the text again, and is more
akin to the model of context-free grammar we're theoretically aspiring to.
It seems cleaner to me to clearly define the exception to the EBNF this way,
but that could be a bias not based on much real evidence.
I think the amount is processing is the same either way. With my way,
we do end up with a pure EBNF parser, just with something tacked on
the beginning. With your way, the EBNF part and the exception is all
mixed together.
So, to be clear, you're suggesting that we subst: complicated
constructs by their clear, simple equivalents, and then define the
grammar based on the target of that //subst//itution?
Ok, yeah, that sounds like it might be slightly more possible.
Helps pedagogically as well, as long as users are informed that the
system "slightly modified their markup to make it easier to
understand."
Of course, some people might get annoyed by *that*, and they'll be
power users... You really can't win, here, can you?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates
http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA
http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274