Re: `=item 1. Text` Doesn't Produce Ordered List Item
On Nov 12, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote: > It is a bug, insofar as it is behavior not in line with the requirements of > the > specification. If you're saying that the specification was always mistaken in > its attempt to document preexisting behavior, I will totally buy that. Yes. > In that case, I would be all for seeing the spec fixed and then the > implementation to match it -- but the spec has to be fixed! If I work on > Pod-parsing tools, I need to be able to match them against the spec, not > against a reference implementation that violates it. That's my main concern, > here. Yes, I would like to see the spec changed. The best argument not to, IMHO, is Sean's reading of the current spec: http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.pod-people/2010/07/msg1536.html Best, David
Re: `=item 1. Text` Doesn't Produce Ordered List Item
* "David E. Wheeler" [2010-11-12T13:56:01] > On Nov 12, 2010, at 4:18 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote: > >> I'd like to make them consistent. > >> > >> RJBS would not. > > > > That is a mischaracterization. You would like to make them consistent by > > changing the spec to allow new forms. I would like to make them consistent > > by fixing the long standing bug that renders them contrary to the > > specification. > > Right, but: > > a. It's not a bug, it's based on how Pod::Parser worked long before > Pod::Simple. > b. We'd break a lot of existing Pod if we changed it. It is a bug, insofar as it is behavior not in line with the requirements of the specification. If you're saying that the specification was always mistaken in its attempt to document preexisting behavior, I will totally buy that. In that case, I would be all for seeing the spec fixed and then the implementation to match it -- but the spec has to be fixed! If I work on Pod-parsing tools, I need to be able to match them against the spec, not against a reference implementation that violates it. That's my main concern, here. -- rjbs
Re: `=item 1. Text` Doesn't Produce Ordered List Item
On Nov 12, 2010, at 4:18 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote: >> I'd like to make them consistent. >> >> RJBS would not. > > That is a mischaracterization. You would like to make them consistent by > changing the spec to allow new forms. I would like to make them consistent by > fixing the long standing bug that renders them contrary to the specification. Right, but: a. It's not a bug, it's based on how Pod::Parser worked long before Pod::Simple. b. We'd break a lot of existing Pod if we changed it. Best, David
Re: `=item 1. Text` Doesn't Produce Ordered List Item
* "David E. Wheeler" [2010-11-11T23:06:22] > Coming back to this, now that we're trying to get Pod::Simple ready for Perl > 5.14. Anyone else want to vote? The only other thing I'd add is that pod2html > (which IIRC uses Pod::Parser) treats `=item 1. foo` and `=item 1 foo` as > ordered list items, and both pod2html and Pod::Simple treat `=item * foo` as > ordred lists. > > I'd like to make them consistent. > > RJBS would not. That is a mischaracterization. You would like to make them consistent by changing the spec to allow new forms. I would like to make them consistent by fixing the long standing bug that renders them contrary to the specification. -- rjbs
