El domingo, 30 de octubre de 2016, 2:22:32 (UTC+2), Lex Trotman escribió: > > As far as I know there is no rigourous syntax definition. Asciidoc is > a highly context dependent language, so formal techniques like grammar > specifications are difficult to apply to it since most are context > free constructions.
I can't believe that. I accept that it is highly configurable, and that each implementation may change behavior a lot, but there must be a basic formal syntax, otherwise, we would have a babel like in markdown with a mess of versions and variations. I can't believe that asciidoc standardization relies on having a single implementation (or two with asciidoctor) and not in a formal specification. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "asciidoc" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
