> I think the most useful thing to add would be a generic formatting tag, > analagous to =for/=begin, for endless extensibility. Off the top of my head, > I'd say: > > "G<" type ( "|" text ( "|" anything )? )? ">" > > G<color|This is red!|red> > > Here is a link to our internal bug tracker: G<bug|some bug|1234> > > ...and so on. The default behavior would probably be to replace unknown types > with just the text. > > Then people can plug in and provide any formatting code they want without > having to provide a bunch of new code and cause conflict, etc. > > I'm not motivated enough to go implement this. I'm just saying that this would > be a nice way for people to get extensible formatting codes without having to keep extending the spec.
I can only agree. A few more things though. I like the idea of a generic tag but what's the difference between having a generic code that follow the "G<type..." and a tag following this format "type<..." Maybe saying that anything that looks like "[[:alpha]]<" is a code is even more generic. What is important is a way to handle the tags in a standard way. The first step would be to define a namespace where the tag handlers should reside Pod::Code::Handler::*. I wouldn't mind a generic pod renderer that load code rendering modules dynamically. As for the current code (I, C, L, ...) they become just line any another code. Obviously I don't want this to become HTML with css :) Cheers, Nadim.
