First, I notice there are some very useful links here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Alternative_parsers
There seems to be vague consensus that:
- It would be a good idea to replace the parser with a simpler parser using
a more traditional method
- Some parts of the grammar are virtually impossible to implement in such a
parser
- We may have to modify those bits of the grammar
- We will have to take very careful steps to roll out the new parser, to
avoid community outcry and breaking existing wikitext
- We would like to know which bits of the grammar are likely to be affected
and how important they are
Can I suggest that as a first step, we produce a table of the form:
Language feature | Difficulty of implementation | Changes required | Impact
of changes | <link to EBNF>
where the rows are sorted in the order they are processed by
the current parser.
So for example,
Nowiki | Easy | None | - | ...
Nested lists | Hard (I think) | To be determined | To be determined | ...
etc.
The major enlightenment that will come out of this is we will see *all* the
major problems, not just the ones that keep being raised, like bold/italics.
Steve