[Doc-SIG] formalizing StructuredText

[Edward D. Loper]

> > It's hard to come up with a rule that's both simple and safe, but
> > covers cases like '2a.' and '3:'.  So, unless Tibs or others
> > strongly object, I think we should just stick with '([0-9]+\.)+'. :)
> 
> I'll think about this harder after alpha release, but it sounds like a
> non-silly idea for STminus, at least.

I think that there are two ideas of what STminus does that are floating
around:
    1. it's a "simple," "clean" version of ST
    2. it's an intersective subset of STNG and STpy

Unfortunately, (1) and (2) are really mutually exclusive..  If STminus
is to *actually* be an intersective subset of STNG and STpy, then
it needs to take all the quirks of each into account, so it can
make strings where STNG and STpy disagree undefined..

> > > >        * What do you do with things like::
> > > >
> > > >            This *is "too* confusing":http://some.url
> > >
> > > Find author, apply pain (to taste).
> > > Give them the opportunity to retract.
> > > If they refuse, apply lethal doses of pain.
> > > Then they won't repeat the offence.
> > > No problem.
> >
> > Perhaps I should rephrase that.  What should a *parser* do?
> > I guess "die" is a good answer, though it sounds like you might
> > prefer something along the lines of "erase their hard drive." :)
> 
> A parser will have no problems with that text. It will parse it and give
> an answer. Whether it is what the user would expect (if it's docutils,
> it will probably be what *I* expect!).

Hm.  let's try once more.  What answer *should* a parser give?  ('error'
is a possible answer)

-Edward