It's time for the XML vs POD discussion to end. The RFCs are in
limbo now, and this conversation is serving no visible purpose.
Thanks,
Nat
On 4 Oct 2000, at 14:06, John Porter wrote:
I am of the opinion that any documentation which requires, or at least
would significantly benefit from, the use of something heavy like SGML
is best done OUTSIDE THE CODE. There's no reason you can't have
document files accompanying the perl
Philip Newton wrote:
On 4 Oct 2000, at 14:06, John Porter wrote:
I am of the opinion that any documentation which requires, or at least
would significantly benefit from, the use of something heavy like SGML
is best done OUTSIDE THE CODE. There's no reason you can't have
document files
Philip Newton wrote:
If the pod (or whatever) is in a
separate file, this advantage is lost.
Of course; I'd *never* say that there should be NO documentation
in the perl code file. That would be absurd.
--
John Porter
By pressing down a special key It plays a little melody
POD, presumably. Or maybe son-of-POD; it would be nice to have better
support for tables and lists.
We did this for the camel. Which, I remind the world, was
written in pod.
''tom
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 03:15:22 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
We did this for the camel. Which, I remind the world, was
written in pod.
You, masochist.
(duck, and run)
--
Bart.
Garrett Goebel wrote:
From: Peter Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
As I said earlier, why don't we just define a syntax for
*anything* to be used as an extension language, and let
the, er, market decide?
Peaceful coexistance... what a concept.
Sounds to me like the real issue is
On 2 Oct 2000, at 10:35, Garrett Goebel wrote:
From: John Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
It would be very detrimental to perl's performance to have to do an
XML parse of every input source file.
if the parser can skip between:
=pod
=cut
it can certainly be made to skip
On 2 Oct 2000, at 21:04, Adam Turoff wrote:
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
Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 02:44:56PM -0600, John Barnette wrote:
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
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 01:22:47PM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
AuthorEliott P. Squibb/Author
MaintainerJoe Blogg/Author
That is an excellent description of why THIS IS COMPLETE
MADNESS.
It also shows how easy it is to get wrong
Graham.
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 12:58:37PM -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
What? I don't think people should be writing either XML or HTML
as the source documentation format. I said that, quite clearly.
Then what are they going to write it in ? And don't tell me to get
some fangle dangled editor. Which
John Siracusa wrote:
POD is supposed
to be the common format that can be transformed into other representations.
Instead, you have to add the different representations yourself if you do
anything remotely complex.
No, POD is supposed to be simple. It addresses a very small, common subset
At 10:59 03/10/2000 -0400, John Porter wrote:
Complex things should not be done in POD.
Indeed. This debate has been done to death. Have any of the would-be
pod-killers read the thread at
http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/1999-08/thrd11.html#0
1078 ? The thread eventually
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 03:42:49PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 12:58:37PM -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
What? I don't think people should be writing either XML or HTML
as the source documentation format. I said that, quite clearly.
Then what are they going to write it
John Siracusa wrote:
Tables are my personal peeve, but I'm sure you can think of many more common
documentation features that POD should support natively. Hypertext is
another example, off the top of my head.
I agree that pod could support these thing better. I believe it will,
and it
From: Peter Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
As I said earlier, why don't we just define a syntax for
*anything* to be used as an extension language, and let
the, er, market decide?
Here, here!
Peaceful coexistance... what a concept.
Some arguments for XML:
- Done right, it could be easier to write and maintain
Pod is already "done right", and it's already spectacularly
easy to write and maintain. XML is a hammer in search of nail.
Actually, a better analogy would be a its a sledge hammer
in search of a fingernail
At 12:01 PM 10/3/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
How would you down-convert a complex math formula to ascii from, say, xhtml?
You know, I'm thinking TeX would make a great extension language for pod.
Simple, powerful, text-based, with translators to lots of other formats,
and good tool support
From: Jonathan Scott Duff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 06:34:12AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
=head1 TITLE
Perl should use XML for documentation instead of POD
I'll just add my voice to the others. POD is more readable than XML.
As Nathan Wiger said,
Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'll just add my voice to the others. POD is more readable than XML.
Don't forget: more _writable_ as well.
-- Johan
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? Or must all people who believe XML is easier to write and maintain
leave the room?
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
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 02:44:56PM -0600, John Barnette wrote:
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
same or greater ease than pod for build and configuration.
/pod
[...]
/pod
That is an excellent description of why THIS IS COMPLETE
MADNESS.
Maybe I'm reading too much into the comment, but I thought the big deal was
that the example given was not only verbose, but wouldn't
On 10/2/00 4:44 PM, John Barnette wrote:
* Advanced concepts that POD cannot contain that the XML junkies
might want to be used can be embedded. (=for XML)
Yeah, but then you get =for HTML, =for XML, =for 3DHOLOGRAM, whatever. No
one does that because no one wants to make 50 versions of the
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:54:47 -0400, Tad McClellan wrote:
Improperly nested tags, or one character it
doesn't recognize... and the parser says "nyet".
I read that as "the machine will tell me when I messed up".
I'd rather have a machine tell me than have to figure it
out myself. I think I
From: Myers, Dirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Maybe I'm reading too much into the comment, but I thought
the big deal was that the example given was not only
verbose, but wouldn't parse correctly:
(from the section you elided:)
AuthorEliott P. Squibb/Author
MaintainerJoe
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 10:59:46PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:54:47 -0400, Tad McClellan wrote:
Improperly nested tags, or one character it
doesn't recognize... and the parser says "nyet".
I read that as "the machine will tell me when I messed up".
I'd rather
Frank Tobin wrote:
As covered, I'm worried POD will continually outgrow its original design,
and become messier and messier.
I'd be interested to know what has caused you to be concerned about this.
From what I can tell, the pod spec itself has changed very little over
the years; only the
Realize that you are trying to convince a group who uses POD at the command
line (no, not everybody) to use a complete markup language. We're talking about
self-commenting code, sir, not a strict documentation system with indices and
the likes in any formal sense. Even if a documentation
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 03:39:51PM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
I think POD's list handling is full of warts, but what follows
is much better than HTML/DocBook itemized lists:
For me, they're about the same.
Actually, I'd rather read an XHTML/HTML itemized list than a POD one;
they both look
32 matches
Mail list logo
