On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 02:22 +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-26 01:40]: > >I don't like the repetition. Repeating "XML" adds no value to > >the name for me. >
That was my objection... but I admit it _was_ taste to some extent. Just did not seem elegant, and it did not tell me anything > Well, taken versus the XML::Template approach, it makes some > amount of sense. With XML::Template you don’t actually write > templates so much as grammars and instances of them; with my > module, you write an template XML file. > > >I'll suggest "XML::Template::Strict", since your approach seems > >to be stricter about validness than "XML::Template". [snip' > Also, if anything, it would have to be XML::StrictTemplate, since > XML::Template::Strict sounds like it has some sort of commonality > with XML::Template, of which there is absolutely none. Now that I like better. it conveys a real distinction, and tells me something. > Any way to express “idiomatic” in a short word that’s suitable > for a descriptive name? > > Maybe I should give up and just try to generically differentiate > from XML::Template, like maybe XML::ExTemplate? If you are going in that direction... why not just XML::XTemplate or XML::xTemplate or XML::nTemplate (n=new) Now that I think about it... why not post a pod so we can see what the interface might look like. Are you depending on one of the XML parser modules? Lincoln
