On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 03:57:01PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> Tim Bunce wrote:
> >Damian Conway wrote:
> >> Dave Whipp wrote:
> >> >I'm not a great fan of this concept of "reservation" when there is no
> >> >mechanism for its enforcement (and this is perl...).
> >>
> >> What makes you assume there will be no mechanism for enforcement? The
> >> standard Pod parser (of which I have a 95% complete Perl 5 
> >implementation)
> >> will complain bitterly--as in cyanide--when unknown pure-upper or
> >> pure-lower block names are used.
> >
> >That's going to cause pain when people using older parsers try to read
> >docs written for newer ones.
> If I understand you correctly, the pain to which you're referring
> would come from the possibility of a name that's reserved by the newer
> version of Pod, but not by the older version.


> Wouldn't the simplest solution be to let a Pod document announce its
> own version, much like Perl can?

How would that actually help? The old parser still wouldn't know what
new keywords have been added or how to parse them.


Reply via email to