Per Einar Ellefsen wrote:At 05:24 15.06.2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
Thomas Klausner wrote:
Hi! On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 08:14:55PM +0200, Per Einar Ellefsen wrote:
Yes, it's a difficult point. I guess DocSet could be introduced into the Pod:: or HTML:: categories without anyone complaining, although it looks strange because we can extend DocSet. App:: seems a little too generic though. I guess we could pass with "DocSet" as there are already many modules like that that don't fit into a particular category. But I agree, let's follow the guidelines. So Pod:: would be my pick for lack of a better name.
Pod:: was also my first thought.
Definitely not Pod::, as it already works with POD and HTML as source formats and hopefully will be extended to work with other source formats in the future. It's also not a general purpose module, it's an application.
But App:: would also be well suited, because DocSet isn't really just a module you use in your scripts.
Though the only App:: things on CPAN, are actually modules to assist in app creation.
Hmm, how about Bin:: namespace? I guess this is very unixy :)
No, not Bin::.. seems way too weird.
Could we maybe suggest a new category for CPAN? Doc::? There are some modules that would fit in that section, such as DocBook::, or other modules that deal with documentation/docsets in another way.
Well then Doc::DocSet will again will be too broad. And we sure thing don't want Doc::DocSet::Doc :)
Well, as I said, there could be other modules coming, like Doc::DocBook, Doc::Collection, I don't know... And of course we have DocSet::Doc, but does it really matter so much?
-- Per Einar Ellefsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
