History for FormalizingStructuredText

??changed:
-
The Problem

  Although StructuredText is clearly useful, there is some 
  disagreement about what its semantics is/should be.  This 
  disagreement is complicated by the facts that: 

    * StructuredText has never been fully formalized. 

    * At least 3 versions of StructuredText have been implemented:
      ClassicStructuredText, StructuredTextNG, and STpy.

The STminus project

  In order to help resolve these issues, I (EdwardLoper) am beginning 
  the STminus 
  project.  The primary goal of this project is to create a formal 
  description of StructuredText.  This formalization will be expressed
  in EBNF with lookahead.  Since StructuredText is in reality a loosely 
  defined family of markup languages, the project will restrict itself 
  to two defining particular StructuredText languages: StructuredTextNG 
  and STpy.  It will *not* attempt to capture the semantics or structure
  of ClassicStructuredText.

  Read more about this project at
  http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~edloper/pydoc/stminus.html

  If you wish to play with your own copy of STminus, just send me
  email at [email protected].  Once I have finished cleaning up the code
  and documenting it better, I will put a link to it here.

Regression Test Cases

  In conjuction with the STminus project, I (EdwardLoper) am creating a
  large set of test cases, which should be useable by STminus,
  StructuredTextNG, and STpy.  Each test case consists of a
  self-documenting StructuredText string.  The test cases are organized
  to form the sttest.py module:

    http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~edloper/pydoc/sttest.py

  To look at a complete list of the test cases, properly parsed, 
  see the test-set output for STminus version 002:

    http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~edloper/pydoc/stminus002-test.html