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

Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> >>>>> "LW" == Larry Wall <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> LW> : I thought he meant using =use in the .pod to indicate which style sheet to 
> LW> : use, so an RFC would begin with something like "=use RFC", a manpage type 
> LW> : document would begin with "=use Man", etc.
> 
> LW> That's what I was trying to say.  :-)
> 
> So this would be a two (or more?) level specification. One that specifies
> the translation (to the final medium) and an inner one that specifies
> what the markups mean? (Is that what a DTD is?)

The only suggestions made so far about what the DTD would specify are:

1. what sections (head1) would be required; and, by analogy, which would
   be forbidden.  And possibly restrictions on section order.
2. how the L<> tag decorates the link.

The rules by which these policies would be specified could be arbitrarily
complex; in particular, the L<> rule could specify alternative behavior
when different output translators are in effect.

-- 
John Porter

	We're building the house of the future together.