On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:08:38PM -0400, Richard Naugle wrote:
> At 01:05 AM 6/11/2003 -0800, Sean M. Burke wrote:
> >At 07:56 AM 2003-06-10 -0400, Richard Naugle wrote:
> >>[...]I agree with Doc::US_DOD[...]
> >
> >It just occurred to me to wonder... looking back at your original request
> >for m
At 01:05 AM 6/11/2003 -0800, Sean M. Burke wrote:
At 07:56 AM 2003-06-10 -0400, Richard Naugle wrote:
>[...]I agree with Doc::US_DOD[...]
It just occurred to me to wonder... looking back at your original request
for module list inclusion, you said:
>[...] Placing Military::STD2167A in the module li
At 07:56 AM 2003-06-10 -0400, Richard Naugle wrote:
[...]I agree with Doc::US_DOD[...]
It just occurred to me to wonder... looking back at your original request
for module list inclusion, you said:
[...] Placing Military::STD2167A in the module list [I think you meant
putting it in CPAN -- S.B.]
At 02:39 PM 6/6/2003 +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
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
>
At 02:39 PM 2003-06-06 +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
I think the key point was the ability to be able to refer to them
as links using pod L<...> clauses.
Hm. The voices in my head just asked me an interesting question: Why not
just use L links? I mean, I do realize that Pod::* is a bit
tatty and wil
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 curre
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 mak
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 s
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 maki
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
