I found the note I had from Stacy Lacy once upon a time. It was a
newsgroup posting as well; I've included it here.
It seems pretty clear that adoption is okay with Stacy Lacy.
Matt Sisk
--- Begin Forwarded Text ---
Subject: Re: HTML::Calendar, HTML::Element::Table - DISCUSSION
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 21:31:43 -0500
From: Stacy Lacy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl.modules
Matt Sisk wrote:
>
> I finally determined that HTML::Table, though fine in its own right,
> had a completely insufficient interface for what I wanted to
> accomplish.
Thanks, I wrote HTML::Table more than a year ago as an exercise learn
Perl 5 OO techniques. Unfortunately I haven't been able to spend any
time on it for many months.
>
> QUESTIONS (feel free to bring up more):
>
> As for HTML::Element::Table - is this an appropriate name? HTML::Table
> was taken. The new table class is indeed a subclass of HTML::Element.
> But should it instead be called something like HTML::TableElement?
> Doesn't look as good to my eye. Also, in the future, what if people
> want to add new beefed up HTML elements, such as something like
> HTML::Elment::Script?
>
This is a formal offer to turn over HTML::Table to anyone who has time
to maintain it. I have received email from about 45 or 50 people who
are using it in a production web site some quite extensively.
Additionally I have had several requests for enhancements that are
stacked up.
If it makes sense, I will turn over the name HTML::Table and you can use
that name for your much more feature rich HTML::Element::Table module.
The only concern I have is maintaining a level of compatiblity with the
previous version so it doesn't break all the existing code out there.
Your thoughts.
Stacy Lacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Forwarded Text ---
