* Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-19 14:42]: > 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.
> [...] > 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 ... Does not compute. The modules in the Tie:: namespace are implemented using tie() *themselves*. The object oriented modules are implemented using object orientation *themselves*. Net::SSH::Perl is implemented in Perl *itself*. By your analogy, that would mean the modules in JavaScript:: would be implemented using Javascript. Javascript & HTML (or HTML & Javascript) is not an implementation detail. It's the output format. Should Net::SMTP be called Mail::Internet::Transport? > 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. But why is "HTML" less of an implementation detail than "Javascript"? If there is to be no mention of such details, shouldn't it really be called WWW::Tooltip or WebPage::Tooltip or something? Regards, -- Aristotle "If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
