(personal opinions:)
- yes, as I understand the language,
d:e, m:e -> v01:w, v02:wshould be equivalent tod:e m:e -> v01:w v02:w - Both should be equivalent to
d:e; m:e -> v01:w; v02:w(note that this makes no “sense” - stand-alone d:e and v02:w are “goofy” (technical term) as simple node declarations.) I believe that the code “should” be written{d:e m:e} -> {v01:w v02:w}(or equivalent) -
Are there other scenarios that don’t align 100% with the formal spec?
Probably, see: Consider specifying what whitespace means in the format specification (#2052) · Issues · graphviz / graphviz · GitLab, Grammaar in document icorrect and Grammar questions - If this is intended (which I assume), is it planned to update the formal grammar? Issues are worked when they are worked.