Russ Allbery wrote:
I've fiddled with this before and can do text to HTML; the rest is just a
question of picking different backends and shouldn't be *too* hard. All
the heuristics for parsing text are inherently fragile, but if you follow
a standard text formatting style, it works
Bennett Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My own personal favourite for archival format would be to stick with POD
until and unless we can cons up something even Plainer than POD. I've
got this dream that someday we'll be able to take something --- perhaps
based on Damian's Text::Autoformat ---
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 03:59:32PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bennett Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My own personal favourite for archival format would be to stick with POD
until and unless we can cons up something even Plainer than POD. I've
got this dream that someday we'll be able to
2000-12-05-13:02:56 Nathan Torkington:
I say that the person who *does* the work deserves the right to
choose what format it is in. So long as we can make navigable
webpages out of it, that person can write on a Commodore 64 for
all I care.
Would you accept a restatement of: as long as
Bennett Todd writes:
Would you accept a restatement of: as long as whatever it is can be
translated into a common format, we can work with it, and the
composition of the actual words is far more important than niggling
over choices in preferred markup style?
Sure, but that begs the question
