On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 03:57:01PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote: > Tim Bunce wrote: > >Damian Conway wrote: > >> Dave Whipp wrote: > >> >I'm not a great fan of this concept of "reservation" when there is no > >> >mechanism for its enforcement (and this is perl...). > >> > >> What makes you assume there will be no mechanism for enforcement? The > >> standard Pod parser (of which I have a 95% complete Perl 5 > >implementation) > >> will complain bitterly--as in cyanide--when unknown pure-upper or > >> pure-lower block names are used. > > > >That's going to cause pain when people using older parsers try to read > >docs written for newer ones. > > If I understand you correctly, the pain to which you're referring > would come from the possibility of a name that's reserved by the newer > version of Pod, but not by the older version.
Yes. > Wouldn't the simplest solution be to let a Pod document announce its > own version, much like Perl can? How would that actually help? The old parser still wouldn't know what new keywords have been added or how to parse them. Tim.
