Switch to Pod::Simple::XHTML #19

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into
from

Projects

None yet

4 participants

@theory
Contributor
theory commented Sep 7, 2010

I strongly recommend Pod::Simple::XHTML over Pod::Simple::HTML. The HTML it generates is much cleaner, and you don't have to strip out the header and footer like you did with the hack that was there before. The one downside is that Pod::Simple 3.11 is required for it to be valid XHML (a bunch of bugs were fixed in that version). But overall it's just much cleaner to use.

@theory theory Switch to Pod::Simple::XHTML.
There are a few reasons for this:

* It's HTML output is *much* cleaner.
* You can tell it not to emit headers and footers directly.

The only downside is that you need a fairly recent version of Pod::Simple for
it to be there and really solid. I recommend 3.12 or higher, and at least
3.11.
5709959
Contributor
theory commented Feb 11, 2011

BUMP. Any chance of getting this pulled in? I maintain Pod::Simple, and am here to tell you that Pod::Simple::XHTML is so much better than Pod::Simple::HTML…

Thanks,

David

Contributor
theory commented Feb 27, 2012

Nagging again…

dolmen commented Dec 9, 2012

+1
Currently POD files are not rendered in the same way that Markdown files: titles are in bigger fonts, and different color. This makes the Github site inconsistent as the current POD rendering doesn't respects the Github CSS.

Cc: @mdo

Owner

Indeed, I agree this looks bad.

@theory Would you mind merging master so that this branch is up-to-date? Thank you and sorry.

Contributor
theory commented Sep 24, 2013

Hrm. I seem to have deleted my fork. I've forked it again and updated it, but it will go into a new pull request. That okay, @gjtorikian?

Contributor
theory commented Sep 24, 2013

Or you can just add the new fork as a new remote, and merge ccc6a7b.

Owner

That'll do.

dolmen commented Oct 1, 2013

@gjtorikian Any updates?

Owner

Feel free to submit another PR with the updates.

@bkeepers bkeepers closed this Jan 22, 2014
Contributor
theory commented Jan 22, 2014

Huh? This is the PR. There are no changes.

Contributor
theory commented Jan 22, 2014

Oh, I get it, sorry.

Contributor
theory commented Jan 22, 2014

Done in #241.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment