Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
>> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:44:43 -0800
>> From: Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Determine a schema describing the fields/elements of the documentation,
>> in order for the docs to be databased & later sliced in a variety of
>> ways (beginner manual, advanced specs, test cases, etc.) Input and/or
>> output requirements are, at minimum:
>>
>> -- as XML
>> -- as HTML
>> -- as manpage (*roff)
>> -- as PDF
>> -- as LaTex
>> -- as POD
>> -- as executable test cases
>>
>> Note that POD consists of formatting directives, not schema information,
>> and so cannot represent the information in a form sufficient for full
>> slicing. At this point it would therefore appear that XML is the most
>> obvious authoring option.
>
> I very much dislike XML for writing.
Agreed.
> It'd be nice to use some kind of "extended POD" or something.
> Something that's mostly content, little structure.
=begin doc-schema
<perldoc-schema>...</perldoc-schema>
=end doc-schema
> Of course, a sensible XML format could still be useful. Very
> sensible.
Representing document metatdata in XML makes a good deal of sense; but
with only a very small amount of thought that can be inlined in POD
documentation.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
