> > Some arguments for XML:
> >
> > - Done right, it could be easier to write and maintain
> Pod is already "done right", and it's already spectacularly
> easy to write and maintain. XML is a hammer in search of nail.
Actually, a better analogy would be a its a sledge hammer
in search of a fin
From: Peter Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> As I said earlier, why don't we just define a syntax for
> *anything* to be used as an extension language, and let
> the, er, market decide?
Here, here!
Peaceful coexistance... what a concept.
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> At 04:39 PM 10/1/00 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> > What are the chances of the internals supporting user-defined
> >attributes? What would the API look like?
>
> Well, yeah, it'll sort of have to if we allow user-defined types. If you do:
>
>my Dog $spot : male;
>
>
At 12:01 PM 10/3/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>How would you down-convert a complex math formula to ascii from, say, xhtml?
>
>You know, I'm thinking TeX would make a great extension language for pod.
>Simple, powerful, text-based, with translators to lots of other formats,
>and good tool support
John Siracusa wrote:
>
> Tables are my personal peeve, but I'm sure you can think of many more common
> documentation features that POD should support natively. Hypertext is
> another example, off the top of my head.
I agree that pod could support these thing better. I believe it will,
and it
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 03:42:49PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 12:58:37PM -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
> > What? I don't think people should be writing either XML or HTML
> > as the source documentation format. I said that, quite clearly.
>
> Then what are they going to wri
On 10/3/00 12:01 PM, John Porter wrote:
> John Siracusa wrote:
>>> If you add (e.g.) support for tables, then pod is only translatable
>>> into languages which also support tables.
>>
>> What languages *don't* support tables?
>
> I knew that was a bad example of my point. Think of something com
Christian Soeller wrote:
> > Very little discussion was generated by this RFC. Several people noted that perl
>-de 42 and the Perl shell psh already provide some
> > of what the RFC requests; this is noted in the RFC.
> >
> > The RFC is not being withdrawn, since 2 other people expressed (mild) i
John Siracusa wrote:
> On 10/3/00 10:59 AM, John Porter wrote:
>
> > If you add (e.g.) support for tables, then pod is only translatable
> > into languages which also support tables.
>
> What languages *don't* support tables?
I knew that was a bad example of my point. Think of something compl
Robin Berjon wrote:
> At 10:59 03/10/2000 -0400, John Porter wrote:
> >Complex things should not be done in POD.
>
> Indeed. This debate has been done to death. Have any of the would-be
> pod-killers read the thread at
> http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/1999-08/thrd11.html#0
John Porter (Today):
> Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 02:44:56PM -0600, John Barnette wrote:
> > > But why extend the syntax for such a niche application?
> > >
> > > * POD can be easily converted to XML.
> > > * POD can contain XML.
> > > * Advanced concepts that POD ca
Garrett Goebel wrote:
>
> Some arguments for XML:
>
> - Done right, it could be easier to write and maintain
Pod is already "done right", and it's already spectacularly
easy to write and maintain. XML is a hammer in search of nail.
> - Why make people learn pod, when everyone's learning XML?
On 10/3/00 10:59 AM, John Porter wrote:
> John Siracusa wrote:
>> POD is supposed to be the common format that can be transformed into other
>> representations. Instead, you have to add the different representations
>> yourself if you do anything remotely complex.
>
> No, POD is supposed to be si
At 10:59 03/10/2000 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Complex things should not be done in POD.
Indeed. This debate has been done to death. Have any of the would-be
pod-killers read the thread at
http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/1999-08/thrd11.html#0
1078 ? The thread eventually di
John Siracusa wrote:
>
> POD is supposed
> to be the common format that can be transformed into other representations.
> Instead, you have to add the different representations yourself if you do
> anything remotely complex.
No, POD is supposed to be simple. It addresses a very small, common sub
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 12:58:37PM -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
> What? I don't think people should be writing either XML or HTML
> as the source documentation format. I said that, quite clearly.
Then what are they going to write it in ? And don't tell me to get
some fangle dangled editor. Which w
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 01:22:47PM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> > Eliott P. Squibb
> > Joe Blogg
>
> That is an excellent description of why THIS IS COMPLETE
> MADNESS.
It also shows how easy it is to get wrong
Graham.
Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 02:44:56PM -0600, John Barnette wrote:
> > But why extend the syntax for such a niche application?
> >
> > * POD can be easily converted to XML.
> > * POD can contain XML.
> > * Advanced concepts that POD cannot contain that the XML junk
18 matches
Mail list logo
