Establishing a recommended statndard for documenting dub packages

[Karabuta via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 16 August 2016 at 21:05:29 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 August 2016 at 19:59:16 UTC, Karabuta wrote:
>> Looking through documentations for the various packages 
>> available in the dub registry, I noticed that some packages 
>> have very good documentation whilst others are quite not there 
>> yet. ...
>>
>> Therefore I suggest the community put-up some kind of 
>> documentation guideline to standardize the learning curve for 
>> packages/libraries. The IPFS project (ipfs.io) has something 
>> like this which makes some things easy to pick up and has 
>> motivated me to suggest this idea. What is your opinion on 
>> this?
>
> How about that standard applies to phobos while we're at it?

Why not?