Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
"J. David Blackstone" wrote: > > Nathan Torkington wrote: > > > > Tim Bunce writes: > > > I'd like to (strongly) suggest that the RFCs use basic pod. > > > > Yes! I'd meant to note this, but it slipped through the cracks and > > when I came to write the spec I'd forgotten. Whoops. > > > > So =heads and verbatim sections are how to write RFCs. We still need > > some HTML and/or text for the RFC format. If someone would like to > > write one, we can put that online. If nobody writes it (this should > > be no more than 30 minutes work) by Monday, I'll write it myself. > > > > I don't feel bad making this post-announcement change, as nobody has > > submitted RFCs in the announced format anyway :-) > > > > Nat > > Here's a draft. Feel free to spruce things up however anyone would > like; I'm just using the format we saw earlier. > > =head1 TITLE > > RFC Format > > =head1 VERSION > > Maintainer: Nathan Torkington <gnat@frii.com> > Date: 30 Jul 2000 > Version: 1 > Mailing List: perl6-announce (?) > Number: ? > > =head1 Abstract > > Perl6 RFC's formatted in POD. > > =head1 Description > > RFC's for Perl6, before accepted as standards, will be formatted in > POD. Initial suggestions and drafts may be submitted in any format, > but eventually each RFC will be re-formatted into POD. > > An RFC will contain the following sections: > > =over 4 > > =item * > > TITLE > > =item * > > VERSION, consisting of metadata including the following entries, > indented so as to keep each line separated by POD formatters: > > =over 4 > > =item * > > Maintainer > > =item * > > Date > > =item * > > Version > > =item * > > Mailing List > > =item * > > Number > > =back > > =item * > > Abstract > > =item * > > Description > > =item * > > Implementation > > =back > > =head1 Implementation > > Should not be difficult since nearly everyone involved in Perl enough > to submit an RFC probably knows POD. Significant software support is > already available for POD, such that reformatting should not be a > problem, either for RFC's initially submitted in a different format or > if at some later date this standard should change. > > =cut I'd like to strongly suggest that people 'attach' RFC's (or whatever we're calling them now) rather than just pasting them into the body of the message. This will make both automatic and manual handling easier, since you should be able to read them in a standard non-mime mail reader, and yet a mime-aware reader can separate the RFC from the body of the message cleanly. Edwin