Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from August 2000
> Bradley M. Kuhn writes:
> > L<perl6-RFCs/"$NUMBER">: $TITLE
> >
> > Where the ": $TITLE" part is optional
Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Why not just L<RFC21> ? It's shorter.
The main thing I have been struggling with is (to quote perlpod(1)):
L<name> manual page
whereas:
L<name/"sec"> section in other manual page
Thus, I didn't think we'd want to pollute the man page space with our RFC's,
but I did think it might be possible that there would be a "perl6-RFCs" man
page, with sections for each RFC.
Basically, I thought L<RFC21> was Bad Forum (TM). But, I am not a POD
hacker.
Later on, I ran into this problem, again to quote perlpod(1):
ยท Translators will mostly add wording around a L<> link, so that
`L<foo(1)>' becomes "the foo(1) manpage", for example (see
pod2man for details). Thus, you shouldn't write things like `the
L<foo> manpage', if you want the translated document to read
sensibly.
So, L<RFC21> will expand to "The RFC21 manpage" in pod2man. Then, I started
using:
L<RFC 21|perl6-RFCs/"21">
which is very annoyingly too long!
I don't know any way around these problems. Can a POD-person perhaps speak
up and make a suggestion?
> > Status can be exactly one of the following states
> > (subject to additional possible states, of course):
> >
> > In-Discussion
> > Superseded-by: L<perl6-RFCs/"$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.
Sounds ok to me.
> 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.
We don't need to have "Frozen" be binding permanently. "Frozen" can just be
a codeword for: "not likely to be discussed again without a really good
reason". Thus, "Frozen" could be migrated back to "In-Discussion" if
someone makes a good case for it. (Think of it in terms of a code
freeze---often, there are bug fixes after a freeze, but never new
development).
I envisioned "Approved-by:" and "Rejected-by:" as "no fundamental changes".
A rejected RFC would have to be rewritten as a new RFC to get discussed
again, and approved RFCs would only change for sake of verbosity and
clarifications.
Also, don't forget about Simon's "Withdrawn-by" suggestion (I believe that's
in my most recent patch).
> Status should probably be metadata in the (poorly-named) VERSION
> section, rather than a separate heading.
I agree, but can VERSION get renamed if we add status to it, or does already
too much depend on that name?
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next