david wrote:
Does a lack of responses mean that there *are* no issues?
the first time, I got to the following complete nonsense: "XML and SGML /.../ are verbose, difficult to type, and too cluttered to read comfortably as source." and having written several books in SGML and XML without noticing any of those "widely known" problems, I decided that it wasn't meaningful to continue. ::: after a second attempt to read it, I got stuck in the Q&A section. I've never seen such an arrogant PEP before; the authors clearly have very little experience from the problem domain (not only writing and maintaining documentation with markup, but also what makes Python so incredibly usable), yet they want to want to force their new invention down everyone's throat (hey, we spent a lot of time desiging this, so of course you shall have to use it): want to contribute a PEP? sorry, you have to learn a new markup language. want to fix something in the README? sorry, you have to learn a new markup language. want to fix a module in the standard library? sorry, you have to learn a new markup language. it's easy. there are only a couple of 100ks of specifications to read and understand. (that's only slightly larger than the Ruby language reference, and we're convinced that you'd rather learn another markup language than another programming language, right?) (and while you're at it, get a new keyboard; we don't care much about people using non-US keyboards...) ::: -1. the world doesn't need another markup language. there is only one markup language that everyone knows, and it's called HTML. the javadoc folks got it right. this one's all wrong. </F>