Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from August 2000
Bradley M. Kuhn writes: > I suggest, so that better linking can be provided, that we use something > like this: > > L<perl6-RFCs/"$NUMBER">: $TITLE > > Where the ": $TITLE" part is optional > > This way, if someone writes a POD parser module that can generate nice > HTML (or other link-able output) from RFC PODs, links can be added > automatically without guessing. Why not just L<RFC21> ? It's shorter. > * Standardize the STATUS section, which contains one line of data that > indicates the status. Status can be exactly one of the following states > (subject to additional possible states, of course): > > In-Discussion > Superseded-by: L<perl6-RFCs/"$NUMBER"> > Approved-by: $NAME $EMAIL > Rejected-by: $NAME $EMAIL > Defunct I'd been picturing the lifetime of discussion as finite. Rather than go infinitely over old ground, at some point the RFC would be frozen. This means that the interested parties debated everything they could, and the RFC represents their best thinking. This would mean an extra 'Frozen' status. I'm not sure how realistic freezing an RFC is, though. I want it because I suspect long-running discussions of providing diminishing returns, but I know enough about myself to also wonder whether this isn't a personal quirk. Input requested. Status should probably be metadata in the (poorly-named) VERSION section, rather than a separate heading. > I hope you like my suggestions. The patch is attached. I do like them. Let's work out the above details and then make it so. NatThread Previous | Thread Next