<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Damian
Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Overmeer wrote:
> [...yet another honest and heartfelt plea for Pod 6 to be something
> entirely different from what it is currently designed to be.]
> The solution is simple, you know, Mark. Why not just write up your own
> alternate S26, redesigning Pod 6 the way you think it should work, and
> then publish your proposal for consideration here?
Couldn't most of this be figured out by making Pod6 extensible (or
whatever the right term is). Pod6 would be more of the syntax and basic
operation, but other people could have custom directives that their
Pod6 translators and formatters could then use. That is, not all of
this has to be in the spec if the spec has a way to make it possible
And, as far as writing a new S26, does this mean that this really isn't
open to discussion? That is, if we want something different than you
want we have to have competing specs and there won't be any compromise?