A. Pagaltzis writes: > The HTML generation code in CGI.pm is misplaced.
Agreed. > > CGI::Tooltip > > I vote against this. I'm not sure that there's a poll going on ... but using the CGI:: namespace would just seem to be making the problem worse. > > HTML::Tooltip > > Could (barely) live with that, That's rather an extreme reaction -- it can be annoying when so many modules are badly named, but I don't think it's ever been the cause of death. > if you must pick this, but it would IMHO be mistaken. I think it's the best name anybody's suggested -- it's a module for generating HTML tooltips, so HTML::Tooltip describes exactly what it does on the tin. > > JavaScript::Tooltip::HTML > > See previous mail and above explanation: this is perfect. That makes the mistake of emphasizing implementation over purpose (as with so many of the modules in the Tie:: namespace). If somebody wants HTML tooltips then they aren't necessarily bothered how they are implemented. Or, the module could be called HTML::Tooltip::JavaScript, allowing for somebody else to create HTML::Tooltip::CSS in the future. That puts the purpose first and the implementation last. Putting this in the JavaScript:: namespace because it uses JavaScript for its implementation would be like putting all object-oriented modules in the Class:: namespace, or saying that Net::SSH::Perl should be in the Perl:: namespace becase it's implemented in Perl, or ... Smylers
