On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Ricardo SIGNES <[email protected]>wrote:
> > I am not clear on whether this paragraph says or means much: > > Throughout this document, "Pod" has been the preferred spelling for the > name > of the documentation format. One may also use "POD" or "pod". For the > documentation that is (typically) in the Pod format, you may use "pod", or > "Pod", or "POD". Understanding these distinctions is useful; but obsessing > over how to spell them, usually is not. > > So: the format is POD, Pod or pod, but a document is the pod, Pod, or POD? > > Is it trying to say that all three are always acceptable and not to worry > about > it? If there is an intended distinction, I'd like to clarify it. > Hi, I have always taken this to mean that "Pod" is the preferred spelling for the format and "pod" for the file as in "The Pod documentation is included in document.pod". I also take it to mean that it isn't worth beating anyone over the head if they spell it differently. It isn't Perl v perl. > > I'd think "Pod" for the format and "pod" for "the pod of that module over > there." > > (FWIW, I'm submitting a few patches to this doc to p5p to correct obvious > errors.) > I'd be wary of making any changes to perlpodspec beyond fixing typos (if any) since it affects everyone who will write or has written a Pod parser. Also, I'd think that this is the forum for discussing perlpodspec patches rather than p5p. John. --
