On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 07:18:21PM -0700, William R Ward wrote: > Kurt Starsinic writes: > >On Jun 05, Sean M. Burke wrote: > >> At 06:20 PM 2003-06-05 -0700, William R Ward wrote: > >> >I really hope the admins don't accept this new US_DOD:: top-level > >> >domain. I think it should go under the Doc::US_DOD:: hierarchy. There is > >> >no Doc:: top-level hierarchy currently that I can find, so making a new > >> >place for all modules that are solely documentation seems like a better > >> >idea than making a new place for the Department of Defense. > >> > >> Doc::* seems reasonable to me.
I agree. > >> I'm idly curious how many other people (other that this Mugatu Ramses > >> Kwashiorkor person) are really interested in publishing non-module > >> non-perl* docs in CPAN. > > > > I've been thinking about that. Why would anybody go to CPAN > >to look for DOD docs? It's certainly not where I would ever look. > > Well it is an odd place, but if the docs are in POD form, and if they > are installable using "perl Makefile.PL; make; make test; make > install" and then viewable using "perldoc US_DID::Whatever" then I > don't see any harm in it. I think the key point was the ability to be able to refer to them as links using pod L<...> clauses. Naturally we don't want gigabytes of non-perl documentation to end up on all the CPAN mirrors so a little moderation may be needed. > I haven't seen the content of these modules so I don't know if that's > how they work or not, but they should work that way if they don't. http://search.cpan.org/author/SOFTDIA/Military-STD2167A-0.03/lib/Military/STD2167A.pm Tim.
