Re: RFC: A Test For Every Patch
[email protected] (Dan Sugalski)
| Newsgroups | perl.bootstrap |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
At 04:08 PM 7/26/00 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >Randal L Schwartz <[email protected]> writes: > >>>>>> "Dan" == Dan Sugalski <[email protected]> writes: > > > Dan> No, I don't think that should be a requirement. If we're going to > > Dan> want markup, we might as well go for something like XML. > > > DocBook. :) > >That's certainly one way of making sure I won't submit an RFC. 1/2 :) Text is fine. Text is, in fact, really really good. I think at this point we should use a plain text template and ask people to use it. If we want fancier stuff, there's no reason not to have an XML template (that something can autogenerate into text). RFCs that get declared as standards could well be done in something more formal, but I don't think we should ask anyone who cares enough to submit one to jump through too many markup hoops. (Including ones as simple as POD) Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai [email protected] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk