On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 08:33:18AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
>
> OPEN ITEMS:
> Note: Not all of these have RFCs associated with them. I would simply
> like to form a list consensus of how we want to address them.
>
> 1) Pod parsers:
> Marek Rouchal and Barry Slaymaker are working on two separate POD
> parsers. Marek's uses a DOM model, Barry's uses an event-based model.
> There is ongoing debate about which is better based on: RAM usage, disk
> usage, speed, general power. This hasn't been discussed in a while; is
> there any further progress, and is there anything that either Marek or
> Barry could use from the community?
I think I missed this discussion. Can you provide the relevant URLs
on mail-archive.com, please?
And I'm not sure this is an issue for perl-qa to resolve. POD Shall Not
Change[*] from a markup perspective. Whether the tools change/improve/multiply
is not an issue for the Perl6 project to resolve, it's an issue for
tool writers to fight^Wargue over^W^Wdiscuss.
*: This is one of tchrist's commandments, from way back. You can
interpret that to say that POD is not becoming HTML, or adopting XML
syntax. And the perl docs are not going to change because someone
prefers DocBook this week (e.g., me).
> 3) Indexing documentation
> As far as I can tell from skimming the RFC archive, we never
> submitted an RFC on the idea of putting indexing hints into your POD. Do
> we want to do this?
Is this a QA issue, or a documentation issue? There is going to be
plenty of time to discuss documentation, and all of those issues seem
orthogonal to actually developing Perl6. That is to say, there may be
QA related issues to this, but they don't need to be resolved now.
Z.
