On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 03:36:20PM -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> From: Tom Christiansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >- Done right, it could be easier to write and maintain
> >
> > Strongly disagree.
>
> Ok, you disagree. There are differing opinions here. Can we agree to
> disagree?
No.
Agreeing to disagree about this is like agreeign to implement Perl
with three parts C, two parts Eiffel, two parts Python and one part
Objective C. TMTOWTDI can't always be invoked simply because this
project is named Perl.
> Or must all people who believe XML is easier to write and maintain
> leave the room?
There are huge cultural, technical and practical limitations for
Perl to adopt XML as a documentation syntax, or code all docs in
=xml...=cut blocks.
If you want to use XML, Latex, Texinfo or raw *roff for your docs,
then by all means do so. Understand that Perl can't be made to
magically ignore embedded Texinfo, and Perl contributors realistically
can't be made to understand/patch/correct multiple markup formats.
This is why we invented POD. This is why we use POD.
> Horror of horrors: why not support both? Long live: TMTOWTDI. If XML
> documentation fails to thrive, cut it from Perl 6.1.
XML docs *have* failed to thrive among those who document Perl.
They have failed to thrive among that group for over two years,
especially since all that's missing is someone thinking about a
definitive POD->XML conversion. (Sorry, I'd chip in, but I'm a
little busy this week.)
> > That is an excellent description of why THIS IS COMPLETE
> > MADNESS.
>
> Being able to parse for well-definedness, DTD validation, and schema
> constraints are postive things.
And none of them *require* XML. There's no reason why POD can't be
well-defined, validated and schema correct.
Z.
