Garrett Goebel (Today): > Horror of horrors: why not support both? Long live: TMTOWTDI. If XML > documentation fails to thrive, cut it from Perl 6.1. If both thrive, keep > 'em. As everyone has said XML can be converted to pod and vice versa. Pod > tools could be made to coexist with XML. 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 junkies might want to be used can be embedded. (=for XML) An interested party could easily write another pod2* that did the job using the XML-specific sections. (podxml2man, maybe?) I'm struggling to see; is there anything here we can't already do? ~ j.
- RE: RFC 357 (v1) Perl should use XML for documentation inst... David Grove
- RE: RFC 357 (v1) Perl should use XML for documentation... Garrett Goebel
- Re: RFC 357 (v1) Perl should use XML for documentation... Johan Vromans
- RE: RFC 357 (v1) Perl should use XML for documentation... Garrett Goebel
- Re: RFC 357 (v1) Perl should use XML for documenta... John Barnette
- Re: RFC 357 (v1) Perl should use XML for docum... Nicholas Clark
- Re: RFC 357 (v1) Perl should use XML for d... John Porter
- Re: RFC 357 (v1) Perl should use XML for docum... John Siracusa
- Re: RFC 357 (v1) Perl should use XML for d... John Porter
- Re: RFC 357 (v1) Perl should use XML ... Robin Berjon
- Re: RFC 357 (v1) Perl should use XML ... John Siracusa
- Re: RFC 357 (v1) Perl should use XML ... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 357 (v1) Perl should use XML for documenta... Adam Turoff
- Re: RFC 357 (v1) Perl should use XML for docum... Philip Newton
- RE: RFC 357 (v1) Perl should use XML for documentation... Myers, Dirk