[Doc-SIG] Formalizing StructuredText (yeh!)

Ken Manheimer klm@digicool.com
Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:58:06 -0500 (EST)

Edward Loper:

> Tony Ibbs?:

> > "Edward D. Loper" <edloper@gradient.cis.upenn.edu>

> > BUT I think that it would be better to strategically insert references
> > to STminus at "the appropriate places" in the Zwiki (mind you, I've
> > still to figure out how the people using Wikis target new stuff that
> > they should be looking at).

Typically, people check the wiki's RecentChanges page, looking for
page names of interest near the top - "near" getting bigger the less
recent your last visit.  (Automated notifications would be nicer, but
our energy for this kind of thing is going elsewhere...)

> I added a page to Zope (under CurrentIssues), and I'll try to actually
> put more content there when I can. :)

Very nice to see - thanks!
> > > I have a suscicion that STminus's current definition does *not*
> > > actually provide a subset of the intersection of STNG and STpy..
> > 
> > I think it's very close, actually.
> I guess it depends on how much the implementations diverge from
> the intensions..  At least for STNG, there are a number of current
> differences.  I've been writing a large test set, and plan to 
> post a link to it, and to the results of running STminus on it,
> later today.. (still needs a little more work).  At that point, I'm

Great boon that you're making tests - sounds like you're encountering bugs
or unwanted looseness in STNG.  We'll want to fix such.

> hoping we can get a better idea of whether STNG and STpy really
> act like STminus.  (My guess is that most differences are unintentional
> ones)
> [...]
> > In the case of STpy, if it does something surprising then either that's
> > a bug, or an unforeseen consequence of something that *isn't* a bug, in
> > which case it either needs designing around or explaining.
> > I doubt that STNG is too much different (although I suspect they prefer
> > the "explain around" to the "change" mechanism - stability (of some
> > sort) over perceived complexity).
> I'm hoping that STNG will be willing to make at least a few changes..
> For example, changing 'x*y' and 'y*z' to be 2 literals rather than
> one emph area.

I'm pretty sure we will want to fix bugs and track a good base standard
(which is where STminus seems to be heading) in STNG.  The problem is
going to be finding time to do so - at least for the next few weeks, all
the likely suspects are inundated - but we are interested, and will
eventually make time to track.  (In case it needs saying, patches would be

Ken Manheimer