That’s a pretty good idea. I think we’ll see if we can get that to work.
On August 14, 2014 at 17:37:07, Nigel Thorne ([email protected]) wrote: rule(:a) { a_properly_formed_a | consume_anything_upto_the_next_tag_start } rule(:consume_anything_upto_the_next_tag_start) { (start_tag_token.absent? >> any).repeat(1) } sorry forgot the repeat --- "No man is an island... except Philip" On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Nigel Thorne <[email protected]> wrote: The only solution I can think of is to have rules that have some generic catch all as a options... so... rule(:a) { a_properly_formed_a | consume_anything_upto_the_next_tag_start } rule(:consume_anything_upto_the_next_tag_start) { start_tag_token.absent? >> any } --- "No man is an island... except Philip" On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Ryan Schlesinger <[email protected]> wrote: Is there a simple way to get parslet to be more forgiving in parsing unknown tokens? We’re collaborating on a dmarc record parser that uses parslet and we’ve run across a paragraph in the spec that turns our current understanding on its head. See:&nb sp;https://github.com/trailofbits/dmarc/pull/6 We need to ignore unknown tags and ‘should’ discard syntax errors.
