On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 12:33:40PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I wasn't suggesting that we should change anything, or even
> resolve any of the issues about which model is better. I just wanted to
> make sure that, (A) if anyone wanted to submit an RFC related to this,
> that it went in in time, and (B) if either Marek or Barry wanted any help
> or input, it was made available to them.
My point is (C), this is a discussion about POD tools, and there is no
need to form a consensus about that. We will have a need for better tools
over time, and we will most likely get better tools over time.
So, on the one hand, I feel it's outside the charter of perl-qa to resolve
this. On the other hand, there's nothing about Perl6 that requires
consensus about POD tools out the gate.
> > 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.
>
> I'm not sure I understand exactly what your concern is, could you
> please clarify it for me? Are you claiming that, since Pod is not
> something that core perl deals with (except to ignore it when
> appropriate), we (the people discussing the development of perl6) should
> not be discussing it at this time?
Yes.
> Or are you claiming that POD is not a
> QA issue and should not be discussed on this list?
Partially.
> Or is it something
> else entirely?
QA of POD is a perl-qa issue, but POD features and POD formatters are not.
Z.
