On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 12:28, Brian Ingerson wrote: > The interesting thing to me is that all 3 syntaxes map over the same > data model and thus are easily interchangable. The other interesting > thing is that all three could be supported without affecting the Perl5 > or Perl6 syntax proper.
If any of the above was news to you, then I suggest you take another look at why POD (and more generally, any abstract markup language) exists. If any of the above were NOT true, it would be contrary to the entire point of an abstract, layout-neutral markup language. It is, however, contrary to the spirit of POD for you or me to continue much further down this road (see below). > Sam "mugwump" Vilain refers to each of these syntaxes as /Pod dialects/. > He is working on more formally defining the common model or "AST" that > these dialects map to. Why? Seriously, why on earth do you want to encourage the proliferation of variant markup languages?! There aren't enough? My effort here was to try to PREVENT the proliferation (e.g. by Kwid and POD butting heads and ending up in a stalemate). The only problem is that, presented with a compromise, the Kwid folks seem to be content to ADD it to the list of variants rather than, in fact, compromise and collapse the list. I'll continue only as far as is needed to propose this in full as an example parser / converter, and then I'm going to stop. My goal is not to proliferate the number of markups further, and I'd MUCH rather see Perl 6 rely on POD than fragment the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT TASK in creating code to share with the world: documentation. If I'm left on a desert island with POD, then the only part I'll lament is the desert island. -- Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Senior Systems Engineer and Toolsmith "It's the sound of a satellite saying, 'get me down!'" -Shriekback