Hello,
PEP 1 states that plain/text is an acceptable value for a PEP's content
type, and it is the default value if no content type is specified.
May I propose adding something along the line of: "new PEPs should use
restructured Text format", and that reST format becomes the default.
Based on c
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 5:09 AM, Mariatta Wijaya
wrote:
> PEP 1 states that plain/text is an acceptable value for a PEP's content
> type, and it is the default value if no content type is specified.
>
> May I propose adding something along the line of: "new PEPs should use
> restructured Text form
Confirming, +1 from me. Barry, Nick? You two are the most active
authors of PEP 1.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 5:09 AM, Mariatta Wijaya
> wrote:
>> PEP 1 states that plain/text is an acceptable value for a PEP's content
>> type, and it is the
On Oct 13, 2016, at 01:32 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>Confirming, +1 from me. Barry, Nick? You two are the most active
>authors of PEP 1.
+1 for text/x-rst being the preferred. We'd need some time to make it the
default, but I'm generally in favor of that happening. Is anybody actively
working
On 10/13/2016 4:38 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 13, 2016, at 01:32 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Confirming, +1 from me. Barry, Nick? You two are the most active
authors of PEP 1.
+1 for text/x-rst being the preferred. We'd need some time to make it the
default, but I'm generally in favor of
On Oct 13, 2016, at 05:31 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>The major issue is making knowledge of rst and sphinx a requirement for
>submitting a PEP. I suggest making sure that PEP 1 exemplifies the preferred
>usage of rst in PEPs and then suggesting using it as model.
https://github.com/python/peps/pull
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> I don't understand the question: isn't the whole point of reST that it's a
> easily readable markup language? Just post the reST!
+1
-eric
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https:/
On 10/13/2016 5:59 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 13, 2016, at 05:31 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
The major issue is making knowledge of rst and sphinx a requirement for
submitting a PEP. I suggest making sure that PEP 1 exemplifies the preferred
usage of rst in PEPs and then suggesting using it as
On 14 October 2016 at 06:32, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Confirming, +1 from me. Barry, Nick? You two are the most active
> authors of PEP 1.
I've merged the PR that Barry wrote to address Mariatta's query, so I
guess that counts as +1's from both of us :)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | nco