John Porter (Today):
> Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 02:44:56PM -0600, John Barnette wrote:
> > > But why extend the syntax for such a niche application?
> > >
> > > * POD can be easily converted to XML.
> > > * POD can contain XML.
> > > * Advanced concepts that POD cannot contain that the XML junkies
> > > might want to be used can be embedded. (=for XML)
> >
> > Now, if I could use POD to get the job done more lazily, but switch to XML
> You can! That's what Mr. Barnette was just saying.
>
> =begin XML
>
> <xmlcrap> unreadable verbosity...
> <!lest anyone wonder how I feel about it...>
> </xmlcrap>
>
> =end XML
>
> You would just need a pod converter to process it.
> And you could probably whip that up yourself in no time.
Yup. Like I said, it'd be fairly easy to write xmlpod2[man | et al.]
equivalents for translation. These applications could act just like their
pure-pod equivalents, but optionally parse XML blocks. So you could do
anything from
=pod
=begin XML
<the_entire_pod_in_xml_for_masochists/>
=end XML
=cut
...to
=pod
(lotsa normal podtext)
=begin XML
<complicated_table_i_dont_want_to_render_in_ascii/>
=end XML
And I'm sure that someone would write an xmlpod2pod at some point. ;-)
~ j. // "The eleventh commandment was `Thou Shalt Compute' or
// `Thou Shalt Not Compute' -- I forget which."
// -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982
