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