> > Some arguments for XML:
> >
> > - Done right, it could be easier to write and maintain
> Pod is already "done right", and it's already spectacularly
> easy to write and maintain. XML is a hammer in search of nail.
Actually, a better analogy would be a its a sledge hammer
in search of a fingernail ;-)
> > - Why make people learn pod, when everyone's learning XML?
> > there's the "everyone else is doing it" argument for XML.
> Pod's easier to learn than xml; and besides, "everyone's
> doing it" is not a good reason (not to mention that it's false).
Exactly... XML is *NOT* a "tried and true" format IMHO.
I have yet to be convinced that XML won't be ditched
sometime in the near future for the "Next Big Thing" (tm)
No offence meant to XML fans... ;-)
> > - Standard elements could be defined and utilized with the
> > same or greater ease than pod for build and configuration.
> False. The only thing missing from pod is the definition of
> these "standard elements" in the pod spec. The way to fix
> it is to add these definitions, not replace pod with xml.
Just be careful not to expand POD too much. One of its greatest
strengths is its simplicity.
Greg
