Since it mentions pod translators... -- Tim Jenness JCMT software engineer/Support scientist http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/~timj ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:29:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections John Porter writes: : The only suggestions made so far about what the DTD would specify are: : : 1. what sections (head1) would be required; and, by analogy, which would : be forbidden. And possibly restrictions on section order. : 2. how the L<> tag decorates the link. : : The rules by which these policies would be specified could be arbitrarily : complex; in particular, the L<> rule could specify alternative behavior : when different output translators are in effect. Most of the heuristics currently applied by the various pod2xxx filters should be abstracted out into a policy file of some sort. For instance, only in the Perl documentation should $1 assume C<$1>. (If even there.) Larry
