On 6/6/07, Ian Malpass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been documenting lately, so I'm a bit POD-focussed at the moment :) I was pondering creating Pod::Critic, as a documentation analogue of Perl::Critic.Clearly it's not so easy to give hard-and-fast rules about documentation, but I thought it might be useful as a framework for enforcing internal documentation standards and "house styles", even if it didn't ship with many policies itself. Policies I've thought of: * Has NAME * Has SYNOPSIS * Has copyright details * Has license details * Method docs have examples * No spelling errors (borrowing Pod::Spell) Other more vague/less useful ones, perhaps: * Module names are links * Method names are in C<> sequences Some or all of these may not be relevant for particular instances, and I suspect it'll be less common to use an out-of-the-box set of policies. Anyone got any thoughts? Ian
this would be a help to the parrot project. we have coding standards and have used perl::critic to good effect. we've also been working on documentation standards, and a flexible and configurable tool that makes it easy to enforce those standards would be most welcome. i can think of a number of policies that we would like to enforce, and i would be happy to provide them (and get them working) if this project takes off. ~jerry
