[Doc-SIG] formalizing StructuredText

[Edward D. Loper]

> > STminus to be "safe", in the sense that there should be no unexpected
> > non-local dependencies.  Consider your own sentence, if people think
> > they can leave out the apostrophes::
> >
> >    I still don't see why x*y>z *has* to go in literals,
> >
> > Now, we have a bold "y>z ", and a mysterious '*' after has! Clearly
> > not what we want.  (When I say 'x*y>z' *has* to go in the literals,
> > I mean it has to in order to be a "valid" string).
> 
> But by the rules of ST (well, at least of STNG when I looked at it, and
> I'm sure by my interpretation of the Classic rules), no we don't - we
> have a bold "has" and a normal font "x*y>z" - the asterisk therein
> doesn't meet the criteria for starting or ending emphasis. The problem,
> I guess, is that that seems equally clearly to me how it would (and,
> indeed, should) work.

Ok, so I was using different rules than you were (I was using STNGs)..
So the relevant example would be::

  I still don't see why x * y *has* to go in literals.

I admit, that's a little more strained.  But I still think there's
a safety issue here..  (although there is something to be said
about having "'" use the same rules as all the other delimiters
(or vice versa, I guess)).  I'll think on it some more.

Somewhat related, do you think we should allow things like::

  *two*'regions'

Where 2 regions are not separated by space/punctuation?  I vote
no..

-Edward