OK that was the first part of my proposal (and I find your explication for its dismissa fine) but as was explained in the original posting, this module needs a library to be installed. Wouldn't it be nice for the people browsing around to get that information right away?
Would CGI::Tooltip::Whateverlibrary be acceptable? N. "Martyn Pearce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I am not convinced of this. As I read it, the developer using CGI::Tooltip > needs no Javascript knowledge; I think I would see CGI::Javascript::Tooltip > and immediately exclude it as I have no knowledge of Javascript. It should > be made clear in the docs of the module that javascript is required at the > client end, but clearly tooltips are meaningless without a gui, and very few > GUI browsers are not javascript-enabled. I'm all for meaningful names, but > they don't have to carry all the documentation in one line. > >-----Original Message----- > >From: khemir nadim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >I think it would be appropriate to further catalogue the > >module name under "Java" or the name od the specific library > >you interface with.
