Re: description writing guide
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 18:55, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> That might be true, but I would like to see language such as "best
> package for foo" explicitly deprecated in the guide. I've even written
> such stuff myself, back before I realized what the problems were.
> (hopefully there isn't anything like that left in my packages :) )
> On an unrelated topic, it would be nice if the description format
> allowed whitespace to be collapsed/expanded on wordwrapped lines. The last
> time I checked, it seemed to at least imply that whitespace was sancrosact,
> and I found several packages that relied on this in their description.
> (sorry, I don't remember which)
I think this is hard to without switching to a format which allows us to
include more metadata (like XML). So we can explicitly use stuff like
<ul> and <li> for lists, instead of relying on ASCII renderings. That
way we can safely word-wrap the description, instead of just treating it
as the equivalent of <pre>.