On 11/14/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> wrote:
Right here, Steve, you're hitting on the underlying problem with this
project: some behavior of the current parser is defined and
intentional, and some of it is probably an accident of the
implementation.
Distinguishing these is probably a) important and b) impossible.
Well, of course. The initial brief was to document the current behaviour of
the parser precisely. I don't think that's either possible or desirable.
What's far more useful is to document the current behaviour over a useful,
used subset.
I guess ultimately if the correctness of the parser is only going to be
judged by the regression tests and the Wikipedia
corpus, then a happy medium should be findable.
Steve