Is the grammar section intentionally empty?

[Ethan-Arrowood]

I've been digging around the whole micromark ecosystem and discovered the Grammar section of these docs. Is it intentionally empty like that? Am I just missing something obvious and have too much tunnel vision right now?

[ChristianMurphy]

It isn't empty, the context free grammar for markdown is:

markdown = .*

with .* meaning all characters can be in a valid markdown program/document.
Which is also explained by the sentence above the grammar which links to http://trevorjim.com/a-specification-for-markdown/

[wooorm]

I added it yesterday and it’s indeed intentional like this. But maybe it could use some more explanation!

[Ethan-Arrowood]

There may be some value in adding the counter point. Something like:

You may be expecting a BNF form grammar syntax such as:

X ::= Y + Z

However, Markdown is not like other programming languages; in fact it's not really a programming language at all. [Insert points made by previous articles and reference back].

[wooorm]

I added something a couple hours ago: https://github.com/micromark/micromark#grammar. Does that cover sort of what you’re going for?

[wooorm]

I wanted to skip the “what is or is not a programming language” that the original article makes: it’s hotly debated, deciding whether something is programming or not based on whether there are error is a bit weird in my opinion, and it isn’t really important here anyway 🤷‍♂️

[Ethan-Arrowood]

your adjustment is perfect. Thank you for adding it!

And yes true - best to avoid that topic 😅