Quoting Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > At present the Template::* namespace is effectively reserved[*] for the > Template Toolkit. I plan to change that in version 3 to allow it to > be opened up for other templating modules. However, that will take > careful planning to avoid trampling on existing Template::* modules. >
That's essentially the same issue in the SVG namespace. So far, we've managed to preserve SVG:: to include modules that implement an optimized, streamlized DOM. It would be a shame to confuse things with SVG::Graph. What do we do when we want to implement an SVG.pm-based graphing module using SVG::Parser, which uses SVG.pm? Do we call it SVG::Grapher::NoTemplate ? This is a problem. > If you want to go this route then email me off list and I'll commit to > a particular Template::* namespace for this purpose. But I think in this > case, a non-TT specific version of SVG::Graph would be better. > I would second this alternative, or the use of SVG::TT::Graph namespace to identify a template-based system. The problem that I have with SVG::Graph::* is that the system is not related to the SVG base module, and is not a generic graphing implementation. It is a templating implementation that happens to generate SVG because the chosen template happens to be SVG. A generic use of the SVG::Graph namespace, imho, would be relyant on SVG.pm and would be a graphing template. In the same way that SVG::Parser is a parser that generates the SVG.pm DOM (which, by the way, you could conceptually use in SVG::Graph to generate your graphs - many ways to do this...). To use the SVG::Graph namespace will unnecessarily confuse the existing user base. I therefore recommend you use SVG::TT::Graph or something like that which identifies the fact that you are using templates. Ronan > A > > >
