Declaring the revision process over

[finanalyst]

After finalising ideas prompted by @zag's suggestions, which included a more generic placement block, display texts for codes that can fail, and a new Formula block, it seems to me that the specification process for the language has come to a natural end.

The issue of signaling where customisations are to be found remains open, but can be considered an implementation detail at this time - IMHO.

Unless a significant new change is identified, I suggest the specification here can be moved to the Raku Steering Council for adoption.

@thoughtstream @Raku/docteam @Raku/core Any objections?

[thoughtstream]

There remains the issue of @zag's :checkbox proposal,
which I'll address in the separate thread.

I don't think we should pursue the more extensive "selector" mechanism
that @zag also proposed, as it seems to be tied closely to his Podlite design,
which has some fundamental differences from our RakuDoc approach.

As for @zag's W<URI> proposal, I'm still not sure I entirely understand it,
but it does already seem to be covered by: N<P<URI>>

So, apart from :checkbox, yes I agree that our redesign process has reached a natural conclusion
and (assuming we can quickly address the above issue) should be moved to the RSC for approval.

[finanalyst]

generalisation of :checkbox incorporated. HTML rendering now visible at new-raku/rakudoc

[finanalyst]

I've bumped the version to v2.4.0 to indicate final version. Further changes will be to remove work-arounds because we can't yet render RakuDoc v2 fully.