From: Angel Faus [mailto:afaus@;corp.vlex.com] > > I very much dislike XML for writing. It'd be nice to use some kind > > of "extended POD" or something. Something that's mostly content, > > little structure. Formats with a lot of structure tend to be > > unproductive, and although the structure is useful, much of it is > > redundant and can be bypassed by a processor that's just a little > > smarter. > > I agree with you. XML is very unpleasant to write. > > I would rather focus on writing the content, and POD is just ok for > this. > > We can later reformat the content in any other format or maybe extend > POD to handle structure. I think we are going to be more productive > if we avoid the discussion about file formats for now.
Yes one more vote for: use POD and extend as necessary. Someone should probably dig through the perl6-lang archives and write up the great "Perl should use XXX instead of POD" debate. Nip the whole flaming debate in the bud. The most recent one that I can recall started around: http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-language@;perl.org/msg05084.html Okay... let's make that someone be me... The general Pro's and Con's of POD seem to be: PRO === simple concise limited extensible forgiving easy to convert to XXX easy to write easy to read easy to ignore separates block/inline markup no special editor required the camel was written in it the powers that be won't stand for any substitute CON === confusing Perl-centric limited no tables no figures no lists whitespace sensitivity separates block/inline markup extensiblity loses most other "PRO" args The only consist support for something different than POD... was for something that is in fact very similar to, and in fact based upon POD: SDF. http://www.ifi.uio.no/in228/scripting/doc/sdf/index.html And the major arguments for something like SDF as POD "the next generation", are that it allows for tables, figures, lists, variables, styles. That it's extensibility is a little cleaner and easier on the eyes. And that it is less sensitive to whitespace. So my humble advice would be to forget XXX, concentrate on the shortcomings of POD, and perhaps merge whatever new extensible functionality you want, like say support for cascading requirements, into either POD or SDF... and go from there. -- Garrett Goebel IS Development Specialist ScriptPro Direct: 913.403.5261 5828 Reeds Road Main: 913.384.1008 Mission, KS 66202 Fax: 913.384.2180 www.scriptpro.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
