Russ Allbery wrote:
> I've fiddled with this before and can do text to HTML; the rest is just a
> question of picking different backends and shouldn't be *too* hard. All
> the heuristics for parsing text are inherently fragile, but if you follow
> a standard text formatting style, it works reaso
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 03:59:32PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > My own personal favourite for archival format would be to stick with POD
> > until and unless we can cons up something even Plainer than POD. I've
> > got this dream that someday we'll b
Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My own personal favourite for archival format would be to stick with POD
> until and unless we can cons up something even Plainer than POD. I've
> got this dream that someday we'll be able to take something --- perhaps
> based on Damian's Text::Autoforma
Bennett Todd writes:
> Would you accept a restatement of: as long as whatever it is can be
> translated into a common format, we can work with it, and the
> composition of the actual words is far more important than niggling
> over choices in preferred markup style?
Sure, but that begs the questi
2000-12-05-13:02:56 Nathan Torkington:
> I say that the person who *does* the work deserves the right to
> choose what format it is in. So long as we can make navigable
> webpages out of it, that person can write on a Commodore 64 for
> all I care.
Would you accept a restatement of: as long as wh
Simon Cozens writes:
> Yes, we should really postpone the inevitable markup language war until
> we have something to mark up.
You channeled my very thoughts, Simon.
I say that the person who *does* the work deserves the right to choose
what format it is in. So long as we can make navigable web
> "BMK" == Bradley M Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BMK> If we do this, please also make
BMK> or something like that, which is a list that simply redistributes
BMK> mail from to its subscribers. In other
BMK> words, only post would go there, but no
BMK> subscriber could post.
Just be c
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Alan Burlison wrote:
> How about writing the documents in XML and having a 'perl specification'
> DTD?
> ...
> Death to POD!
Can we *please* not re-fight this war? I know you remember the last
couple incarnations of XML VS POD. Just replay them in your mind and
enjoy the sh
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 10:23:46AM +, Tim Bunce wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:20:29AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:16:23AM +, Alan Burlison wrote:
> > > I still think that with the correct
> > > DTD writing the specs in XML would be doable.
> >
> > DocB
Simon Cozens wrote:
> > I still think that with the correct
> > DTD writing the specs in XML would be doable.
>
> DocBook strikes me as being made for this sort of thing.
Yak! no. DocBook is for specifying published document layout and is
pretty huge - far too weighty for what we want. I'm th
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 10:23:46AM +, Tim Bunce wrote:
> As someone who had the option of writing a book in DocBook or POD
> I can tell you that it simply would not have happened in DocBook.
Horses for courses. My next book is going to be in DocBook, and I
do a bunch of documentation in it e
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:20:29AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:16:23AM +, Alan Burlison wrote:
> > I still think that with the correct
> > DTD writing the specs in XML would be doable.
>
> DocBook strikes me as being made for this sort of thing.
As someone who ha
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:16:23AM +, Alan Burlison wrote:
> I still think that with the correct
> DTD writing the specs in XML would be doable.
DocBook strikes me as being made for this sort of thing.
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
-- Aldous Huxle
Adam Turoff wrote:
>
> Say What?
>
Say XML - ex em ell :-)
> We need a better POD, not a cumbersome machine-to-machine interchange
> format for writing docs.
The main problem with POD is that we have to write the tools to do
anything with it. Witness the endless hacking/cursing/hacking/curs
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 08:21:23AM +, Alan Burlison wrote:
> How about writing the documents in XML and having a 'perl specification'
> DTD? With a bit of careful thought we will be able to do all sorts of
> interesting stuff - for example if we tag function definitions we can
> start cross-c
Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Alan Burlison writes:
> > seem a very optimal way to go about it. How about a design document
> > (format to be decided) and a 'design + commentary' document which is the
> > design document with the condensed email discussion inserted into it as
> > the commentary. T
-- Adam Turoff wrote:
> Are you asking for a Design Document (tm) to be published/updated
> along with an Annotated Design Document (tm)? Sounds like what Tim
> Bray did for the XML Spec at http://www.xml.com/axml/testaxml.htm.
Wow - I hadn't seen that - neat. I expect this was generated by wr
Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about we do this to design the architecture and API:
>
> perl6-internals-design is for a team of no more than 10 people. These
> people should have experience either with perl5 or with a similar
> system. Mail to this list goes to perl6-interna
Alan Burlison writes:
> seem a very optimal way to go about it. How about a design document
> (format to be decided) and a 'design + commentary' document which is the
> design document with the condensed email discussion inserted into it as
> the commentary. That way there is a design spec for t
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> * it's difficult for the design to happen through the questions
Is that really true? Have we tried? As far as I can tell we've got a
lot of well-intentioned people that for whatever reason are spending very
little time making Perl 6 happen.
Let
As another example of a process that seems to be working well (as far
as I can tell by being a lurker) check out the xml-dist-app mailing list
archives at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/
They have a draft up in the web [1] and the Subject lines directly
refer to such and such se
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 07:56:21AM +, Alan Burlison wrote:
> How are you going to publish the design? Asking people to follow email
> discussions and try to piece together what is proposed from that doesn't
> seem a very optimal way to go about it. How about a design document
> (format to be
> I'm planning to write (in my copious free time) an
> open-source-licensed book on the implementation and design of Perl
> 6, which should capture for posterity the sense of the discussions
> we will have had while hammering out the design:
This reminds me of:
Hmm, doubtful. The source code ge
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 07:56:21AM +, Alan Burlison wrote:
> How about a design document (format to be decided) and a 'design +
> commentary' document which is the design document with the condensed email
> discussion inserted into it as the commentary. That way there is a design
> spec for
Nathan Torkington wrote:
> This lets us satisfy these goals:
> * open process, both for visible and participation
> * small team doing the design (elephant is a mouse designed by
>committee, etc)
How are you going to publish the design? Asking people to follow email
discussions and try to
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> At 12:32 PM 12/3/00 -0500, Casey R. Tweten wrote:
>> Today around 5:24pm, Simon Cozens hammered out this masterpiece:
>>
>> : On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 09:23:42PM -0700, Nathan Torkington
>> wrote: : > perl6-internals-design is f
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 09:23:42PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> I think I see two problems:
> * a lot of people want to know what's going on, but not all have the
>experience to be able to follow it
> * it's difficult for the design to happen through the questions
AMEN.
> perl6-intern
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Casey R. Tweten wrote:
> Today around 1:16pm, Ask Bjoern Hansen hammered out this masterpiece:
>
> : On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Simon Cozens wrote:
> :
> : > On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 09:23:42PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> : > > perl6-internals-design is for a team of no more t
Today around 1:16pm, Ask Bjoern Hansen hammered out this masterpiece:
: On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Simon Cozens wrote:
:
: > On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 09:23:42PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
: > > perl6-internals-design is for a team of no more than 10 people.
: >
: > And we decide those ten... how
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 09:23:42PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > perl6-internals-design is for a team of no more than 10 people.
>
> And we decide those ten... how? :)
The ~ten who thinks they have the skills and dares to step forward
and volunt
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 12:22:23PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> * MI6
my impression was that both Mossad and the French secret service have been
fingered in more things than MI6. This could mean MI6 do less, or they do
it better.
I think you also forgot the First Church of Christ Scie
Simon Cozens writes:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 09:23:42PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > perl6-internals-design is for a team of no more than 10 people.
>
> And we decide those ten... how? :)
Self-selecting. Who has the necessary experience to bring to the
table and wants to be part of t
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> * Operation Bluebook
Or rather:
* Aliens -- e.g. Vegans. (And no, I don't mean strict vegetarians.
Well, o.k., them too. :-)
* Elians
* The Meat And Dairy Industry
* The Logging Industry
* Whaling Nations
* Sealand
* Hollywood
* the Hezbollah
> * the Tr
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 01:04:19PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > You forgot:
> > * Secret vote of the Perl Cabal...
> > ;-)
>
> And also:
>
> * Behind-the-scenes string-pulling by corporate interests.
I'd like to add the obvious
* CIA
* the 'Family'
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> You forgot:
> * Secret vote of the Perl Cabal...
> ;-)
And also:
* Behind-the-scenes string-pulling by corporate interests.
--
John Porter
At 12:32 PM 12/3/00 -0500, Casey R. Tweten wrote:
>Today around 5:24pm, Simon Cozens hammered out this masterpiece:
>
>: On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 09:23:42PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>: > perl6-internals-design is for a team of no more than 10 people.
>:
>: And we decide those ten... how? :)
Today around 5:24pm, Simon Cozens hammered out this masterpiece:
: On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 09:23:42PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
: > perl6-internals-design is for a team of no more than 10 people.
:
: And we decide those ten... how? :)
Ideas in no particular order ( and not limiting to 1
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 09:23:42PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> perl6-internals-design is for a team of no more than 10 people.
And we decide those ten... how? :)
--
We *have* dirty minds. This is not news.
- Kake Pugh
I think I see two problems:
* a lot of people want to know what's going on, but not all have the
experience to be able to follow it
* it's difficult for the design to happen through the questions
How about we do this to design the architecture and API:
perl6-internals-design is for a team o
39 matches
Mail list logo
