Hello, orgm...@h-rd.org writes:
> What may help is to document the syntax machine readable and somewhat > more formal. I think it's a bit too early for that. The document describes the current syntax, but also uncovers some ambiguous parts of that syntax, which may need to be fixed (at least require to be discussed). I agree that both tasks can be done in parallel, but I wouldn't like the one you propose to shadow the one that I describe. Anyway, improvements are welcome. Feel free to provide a patch for the document. > This ensures that there are less differences in interpretation and > that the specification can be used to generate an orgmode parser > directly. An example could be how the ietf specifies things, have > a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABNF or EBNF. It's not much > difference from what you have done, but it's more unambigous. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
