Re: `=item 1. Text` Doesn't Produce Ordered List Item

* "David E. Wheeler" <[email protected]> [2010-11-12T13:56:01]
> On Nov 12, 2010, at 4:18 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote:
> >> I'd like to make them consistent.
> >> 
> >> RJBS would not.
> > 
> > That is a mischaracterization.  You would like to make them consistent by
> > changing the spec to allow new forms.  I would like to make them consistent
> > by fixing the long standing bug that renders them contrary to the
> > specification.
> 
> Right, but:
> 
> a. It's not a bug, it's based on how Pod::Parser worked long before
> Pod::Simple.
> b. We'd break a lot of existing Pod if we changed it.

It is a bug, insofar as it is behavior not in line with the requirements of the
specification.  If you're saying that the specification was always mistaken in
its attempt to document preexisting behavior, I will totally buy that.

In that case, I would be all for seeing the spec fixed and then the
implementation to match it -- but the spec has to be fixed!  If I work on
Pod-parsing tools, I need to be able to match them against the spec, not
against a reference implementation that violates it.  That's my main concern,
here.

-- 
rjbs