On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 03:42:57PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > Any others? There are bugs in the RFC process. Now is the time to
> > fix them.
>
> I don't know whether this is worth a separate improvement # but here goes:
>
> Too many RFCs live in a vacuum by not not explaining in enou
> Any others? There are bugs in the RFC process. Now is the time to
> fix them.
I don't know whether this is worth a separate improvement # but here goes:
Too many RFCs live in a vacuum by not not explaining in enough detail
what is the problem they are trying to solve, but instead go ahead an
[Moving this discussion to -meta. See Reply-To.]
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 03:14:39PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > I disagree. The RFC process is for generating ideas, not making decisions,
> > nor is any author obliged to include ideas he/she doesn't agree with;
> > that's why others ca
> I disagree. The RFC process is for generating ideas, not making decisions,
> nor is any author obliged to include ideas he/she doesn't agree with;
> that's why others can (or could) submit RFCs that contradict it, if they
> want to. The author is no more obliged to include opposing opinions
At 08:36 AM 10/4/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>I'm sorry, I was gonna bite my lip, but I've gotta say: Freezing RFC's
>like this when the following is true:
>
> > A lot of good, heated discussion was generated on the mailing lists. The
> > majority seems against using XML-DTD documentation, but g
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 12:18:22PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
>
> Do you expect that your 7 retracted RFCs to be looked at by future
> developers? Even if they had good, but unpopular, points to make? Or do
> you expect that once retracted, they will be ignored?
Mostly.
There are some core d
On 04 Oct 2000 18:43:43 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
>POD is not suitable for producing books. It can be used, however, to
>provide the information that a (human) typesetter can turn into a
>printed book.
If a typesetter knows enough with just the POD, it is possible to
completely typeset the en
Nathan Wiger, at 09:56 -0700 on Wed, 4 Oct 2000, wrote:
> I suspect the fate of this RFC with be a "veto", and it will get just as
> ignored as if it had never existed.
I would argue there exists an important difference between a 'veto'
ignore, and a 'retracted' ignore.
A 'retracted' ignore mea
Nathan Wiger, at 09:56 -0700 on Wed, 4 Oct 2000, wrote:
> This is *exactly* why I suggested that the RFC be renamed and try to
> work within the constraints of keeping POD. In doing so, it could add
> really useful input. Otherwise, it will likely be ignored just like it
> was retracted now. And
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We did this for the camel. Which, I remind the world, was
> > written in pod.
>
> seriously, that impresses me.
POD is not suitable for producing books. It can be used, however, to
provide the information that a (human) typesetter can turn into a
pr
Philip Newton wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that this bit of the third quoted paragraphs is correct:
> "It's quite possible that switching to an XML docset produces a beautiful,
> unmaintained set of documentation that is of no use to anyone." I think
> it's more likely that switching to an XML docset
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 03:15:22AM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> >POD, presumably. Or maybe son-of-POD; it would be nice to have better
> >support for tables and lists.
>
> We did this for the camel. Which, I remind the world, was
> written in pod.
What kinds of things got added for the c
On 2 Oct 2000, at 21:04, Adam Turoff wrote:
> If you want to use XML, Latex, Texinfo or raw *roff for your docs,
> then by all means do so. Understand that Perl can't be made to
> magically ignore embedded Texinfo, and Perl contributors realistically
> can't be made to understand/patch/correct m
On 2 Oct 2000, at 10:35, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> From: John Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > It would be very detrimental to perl's performance to have to do an
> > XML parse of every input source file.
>
> if the parser can skip between:
>
> =pod
>
> =cut
>
> it can certainly be m
> Retracting would have been easier, but could very well be seen as giving up
> on pointing out PODs deficiencies.
Pointing POD deficiencies is fine. But the fundamental thrust of the RFC
is still "replace POD with XML". That's why I even noted the alternative
names and corresponding emphasis in
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Adam Turoff wrote:
> POD has three mighty significant advantages over XML:
> - it is easy to learn
> - it is to write
> - it is easy to ignore, if you're spelunking for Perl code
> Try and do that, when interferes with syntactically.
[snip]
> Moving towards a sys
At 08:36 04/10/2000 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>This RFC should either be retracted, or revised into:
>
> POD to XML translation should be easier
On this subject, I have notes about a Pod::SAX module that would make
pod2xml much easier. If I have time to implement it I'll do it, but I can't
tel
At 08:36 AM 10/4/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > =head1 TITLE
> >
> > Perl should use XML for documentation instead of POD
>
> > =head1 VERSION
> >
> > Status: Frozen
>
>I'm sorry, I was gonna bite my lip, but I've gotta say: Freezing RFC's
>like this when the following is true:
>
> > A lot of
> > Status: Frozen
>
> I'm sorry, I was gonna bite my lip, but I've gotta say: Freezing RFC's
> like this when the following is true:
>
> > A lot of good, heated discussion was generated on the mailing lists. The
> > majority seems against using XML-DTD documentation, but granted there are
> >
[Iain, I'd really appreciate it if you'd copy me on your replies to my
posts. The volume is so high that I don't always get time to grovel
through the digests in a timely manner.]
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, iain truskett wrote:
> * Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [30 Sep 2000 02:47]:
> > However, th
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 08:36:32AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> against them. The whole point of this Perl 6 process is to develop a
> language that the community thinks is the right direction, right?
Really? I thought the whole point of this was to develop suggestions to
put to Larry, for him to
> =head1 TITLE
>
> Perl should use XML for documentation instead of POD
> =head1 VERSION
>
> Status: Frozen
I'm sorry, I was gonna bite my lip, but I've gotta say: Freezing RFC's
like this when the following is true:
> A lot of good, heated discussion was generated on the mailing lists. The
On Wednesday, October 04, 2000 4:15 AM, Tom Christiansen
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> >POD, presumably. Or maybe son-of-POD; it would be nice to have better
> >support for tables and lists.
>
> We did this for the camel. Which, I remind the world, was
> written in pod.
>
> ''tom
Uh...
w
Garrett Goebel wrote:
> From: Peter Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > As I said earlier, why don't we just define a syntax for
> > *anything* to be used as an extension language, and let
> > the, er, market decide?
>
> Peaceful coexistance... what a concept.
Sounds to me like the real i
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 03:15:22 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
>We did this for the camel. Which, I remind the world, was
>written in pod.
You, masochist.
(duck, and run)
--
Bart.
>POD, presumably. Or maybe son-of-POD; it would be nice to have better
>support for tables and lists.
We did this for the camel. Which, I remind the world, was
written in pod.
''tom
26 matches
Mail list logo
