On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 08:07:37PM -0500, Chris Nandor wrote:
At 19.48 -0500 2000.02.22, Jon Orwant wrote:
Chris writes:
I am not sure if MP3:: is a great base name. What about AIFF::, MOV::,
WAV::, etc.?
Maybe Audio::MP3::Info ... ? I am not keen on changing the name, but I
At 20.32 + 2000.02.22, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:24:40PM -0500, Lincoln Stein wrote:
I'd prefer MP3:: myself because MPEG makes people think first of
video.
Go for MP3::* then and let others follow... :-)
Tim.
Any chance Chris has thought about changing his module's
I'd prefer MPEG:: to Audio::MP3:: because of the name length issues.
I'm sure we're all going down the road to hell... %-)
Lincoln
Chris Nandor writes:
At 20.32 + 2000.02.22, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:24:40PM -0500, Lincoln Stein wrote:
I'd prefer MP3:: myself
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:46:42PM -0500, Lincoln Stein wrote:
I'd prefer MPEG:: to Audio::MP3:: because of the name length issues.
I'm sure we're all going down the road to hell... %-)
We are. But I'd be happy on the road with the AudioMP3:: signpost.
The AudioWAV:: etc names would also be
Chris writes:
I am not sure if MP3:: is a great base name. What about AIFF::, MOV::,
WAV::, etc.?
Maybe Audio::MP3::Info ... ? I am not keen on changing the name, but I
wouldn't mind if it were a good name. :) I dunno. Orwant, are any of us
treading down the path to hell here? :D
I
At 19.48 -0500 2000.02.22, Jon Orwant wrote:
Chris writes:
I am not sure if MP3:: is a great base name. What about AIFF::, MOV::,
WAV::, etc.?
Maybe Audio::MP3::Info ... ? I am not keen on changing the name, but I
wouldn't mind if it were a good name. :) I dunno. Orwant, are any of us
