I wasn't aware of that effort, thanks for pointing it out. I was only
tinkering so of course that project is a much more complete solution
than what I was envisioning.
Went through problems.txt and more rapidly throught the specs, and I
liked what I saw. There is a formal statement on the handling of nested
inline markup, but I wonder again if it is not overly restrictive:
Inline markup delimiter characters are used for multiple constructs,
so to avoid ambiguity there must be a specific recognition order for
each character. The inline markup recognition order is as follows:
- Asterisks: `Strong emphasis`_ ("**") is recognized before emphasis_
I don't see why these two markups couldn't be recognized independently
and unambiguously (well, mostly).
Anyway, is discussion of that particular project OT for the Zope list?
Is there any consideration being given to ultimately migrating Zope's
core structured text to that implementation once it is sufficiently
advanced? One problem I guess is that there are enough differences
between the implementations to break existing structured text previously
produced by Zope users.
Richard Jones wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 08:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>How extensively is STX actually used? I've been looking at it myself
>>recently, and the whole system seem rather simplistic to me in how it
>>parses the text. I'm talking specifically of the STX version currently
>>standard in Zope 2.5 (and 2.4 I think), which I believe is STXNG;
>>I explain the problems I see next, followed by a proposed algorithm
>>change and some rough code to make things "better".
>Please also see the ReStructureText effort which addresses a lot of the
>problems that STXNG is perceived to have. It's really very nice, and one of
>these days I hope to get it wrapped in a Zope Product.
>If something you see as being a problem in STXNG isn't addressed there, I'm
>sure the author of ReST would love to hear about it!
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -