On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 10:43:37PM +0800, Stas Bekman wrote: > > Rememeber that this is an extensible framework and not a package with > general purpose modules, so it won't fit into any POD::, HTML::, etc > namespaces. Should we create a new hierarchy for apps? App::, Bin::? > > Thanks for your ideas! If you don't have any I'm quite happy with > keeping the DocSet name.
The general convention is that "frameworks" are _encouraged_ to have a catchy non-generic "brand name" for the top-level name. DocSet seems fine to me, assuming it doesn't clash with some other concept "out there" that someone may want perl modules for later. A quick google search turned up these: http://happydoc.sourceforge.net/HappyDoc-r2_0_1/happydoclib/happydocset_DocSet.py.html http://cic.cstb.fr/ilc/DOCSET/docset.htm but I'd say you can grab the DocSet name now. Tim.
