Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections

Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> 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.

I think we can safely presume that the pod-to-foo translators will have
been locally hacked to account for the RFC-ish nature of the documents.
IOW, that L<RFC1> will be correctly translated into
<a href="/rfc/1.html">RFC1</a> or some such.

-- 
John Porter