> Could use Text::Petal (or Text::PerlTAL)
Well, no, Petal processes exclusively XML or HTML... So being under
Text:: does not seem appropriate. Being under XML: might actually be
better, given the fact that it's what Petal has been developed for.
> You could also use Template::Petal (or Template::PerlTAL).
Template::Petal would do... Although I really don't like being under
'Template' which is used by the template toolkit. I think it leads to
confusion, people might think that Petal is meant to work with the
template toolkit.
> There are modules in the Template:: namespace that aren't related
> to the template toolkit: Template::PSP, Template::Qtpl. I think
> Template:: is too general to be dedicated to a single module/framework.
I agree, but TT effectively *does* occupy the Template:: namespace,
which as you say is very generic... Mind you, CGI::Carp and CGI::Cookie
are both under CGI I suppose...
What do you think?
Would XML::Template eventually be an option?
Best regards,
--
IT'S TIME FOR A DIFFERENT KIND OF WEB
================================================================
Jean-Michel Hiver - Software Director
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44 (0)114 255 8097
================================================================
VISIT HTTP://WWW.MKDOC.COM
