PEP 257 (active) references PEP 258 (rejected) as if it were active

[ExplodingCabbage]

BPO	35651
Nosy	@gvanrossum, @warsaw, @goodger, @terryjreedy, @mihaic, @ExplodingCabbage

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = <Date 2019-01-05.17:41:12.508>
created_at = <Date 2019-01-03.17:34:26.578>
labels = ['docs']
title = 'PEP 257 (active) references PEP 258 (rejected) as if it were active'
updated_at = <Date 2019-02-21.23:32:21.273>
user = 'https://github.com/ExplodingCabbage'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2019-02-21.23:32:21.273>
actor = 'mihaic'
assignee = 'docs@python'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2019-01-05.17:41:12.508>
closer = 'gvanrossum'
components = ['Documentation']
creation = <Date 2019-01-03.17:34:26.578>
creator = 'ExplodingCabbage'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 35651
keywords = []
message_count = 2.0
messages = ['332940', '333066']
nosy_count = 7.0
nosy_names = ['gvanrossum', 'barry', 'goodger', 'terry.reedy', 'docs@python', 'mihaic', 'ExplodingCabbage']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'wont fix'
stage = 'resolved'
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = None
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue35651'
versions = []

[ExplodingCabbage]

PEP-257 says:

Please see PEP-258, "Docutils Design Specification" [2], for a detailed description of attribute and additional docstrings.

But PEP-258 is rejected. It doesn't seem coherent that an active PEP can defer some of its details to a rejected PEP - and indeed it makes me unsure how much of the surrounding commentary in PEP-257 to treat as active. e.g. should I treat the entire concepts of "attribute docstrings" and "additional docstrings" as rejected, given the rejection of PEP-258, or are they still part of the current spec, given that they're referenced in PEP-257 prior to any mention of PEP-258? It's currently completely unclear.

[gvanrossum]

A rejected PEP still exists in perpetuity, and can still be used as a reference. Also, the reason for PEP-258's rejection is not that it is invalid, but that it's not slated for stdlib inclusion. So I think that the reference is still useful, and I don't think there's anything that needs to be done here.