On Dec 20, 2001 at 05:44 -0700, Sean M. Burke took the soap box and proclaimed: : This may sound a bit strange from the person who wrote pod2pxml as well as : pxml2pod, but: : : Does anyone out there (on pod-people or elsewhere) really want to write : podly documentation in XML syntax? I.e., not someone who wants Pod syntax : to be /replaced/ with XML, but someone who wants to write "<c>foo()</c>" : instead of "C<foo()>".
I have had occasion for wanting to do this. : I was pondering making my grand pod2sax/pod2xml parser accept either : traditional pod syntax or an XML notational variant of it -- but the latter : could clearly /require/ a real XML parser module installed; and that idea : causes some angst, anxiety, and anguish among pod-people, including me. So : I'm strongly leaning toward thinking that that idea really is really worth : the bother. I understand that angst, anxiety and anguish. Perhaps it would be best to require that Parser at runtime and force the user to explicitly state that they're about to give you XML (via a command line argument)? Casey West -- COBOL is a primitive language. I mean *primitive*. All variables are global. Data manipulation is a joke and the file systems that COBOL typically works with on mainframes are often so radically different from what we work with today that it's like comparing cheese and Wednesday. -- Curtis Poe
