the push is on

2000-09-19 Thread Dave Storrs
Greetings all, Well, as I understand it, we have 11 days to get everything wrapped up before the RFC period closes. There are three QA RFCs outstanding: Barrie Slaymaker's RFC 11: Examples encoded with =also for|begin|end POD commands which hasn't been updated i

Status check -- trying to wrapup

2000-09-19 Thread Dave Storrs
Greetings all, I volunteered to take over the chairship from Michael for the next two weeks, until the RFC period closes, so I thought I would try to start wrapping things up. Below is my understanding, based on rereading pretty much the entire qa archive, of what topics are settled, whi

Re: the push is on

2000-09-19 Thread Barrie Slaymaker
Dave Storrs wrote: > > Barrie Slaymaker's RFC 11: > Examples encoded with =also for|begin|end POD commands > which hasn't been updated in 48 days. > > is everyone comfortable declaring them Frozen? Yup. - Barrie

Re: the push is on

2000-09-19 Thread Adam Turoff
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 11:53:20AM -0400, Barrie Slaymaker wrote: > Dave Storrs wrote: > > > > Barrie Slaymaker's RFC 11: > > Examples encoded with =also for|begin|end POD commands > > which hasn't been updated in 48 days. > > > > is everyone comfortable declaring them Fr

Re: Status check -- trying to wrapup

2000-09-19 Thread Adam Turoff
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 08:33:18AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote: > > OPEN ITEMS: > Note: Not all of these have RFCs associated with them. I would simply > like to form a list consensus of how we want to address them. > > 1) Pod parsers: > Marek Rouchal and Barry Slaymaker are working on

Re: Status check -- trying to wrapup

2000-09-19 Thread Dave Storrs
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Adam Turoff wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 08:33:18AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote: > > > > OPEN ITEMS: > > Note: Not all of these have RFCs associated with them. I would simply > > like to form a list consensus of how we want to address them. > > > > 1) Pod parsers: >

Re: Status check -- trying to wrapup

2000-09-19 Thread Adam Turoff
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 12:33:40PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote: > On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Adam Turoff wrote: > > And I'm not sure this is an issue for perl-qa to resolve. POD Shall > > Not Change[*] from a markup perspective. Whether the tools > > change/improve/multiply is not an issue for the Perl6

[warnings by default] (was Re: Status check -- trying to wrapup)

2000-09-19 Thread Daniel Chetlin
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 08:33:18AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote: > 1) Warnings on by default: Tom C is strongly against this. Response >seemed generally negative, and there has been no discussion in the >last 10 days. I'm also strongly against it, and RFC 16 belongs to me, but in fairness to

Re: Status check -- trying to wrapup

2000-09-19 Thread Barrie Slaymaker
Adam Turoff wrote: > > My point is (C), this is a discussion about POD tools, and there is no > need to form a consensus about that. We will have a need for better tools > over time, and we will most likely get better tools over time. >From my point of view, the discussion was about how to impl

Re: Status check -- trying to wrapup

2000-09-19 Thread Adam Turoff
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 08:09:41PM -0400, Barrie Slaymaker wrote: > > The POD features under discussion are testing features. The discussion > of SAXish vs. DOMish was a tangent only. > Good. Then it sounds like POD-SAX vs. POD-DOM is one less issue to resolve this week. Z.