Yeah, that makes sense to me. >-----Original Message----- >From: khemir nadim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 11:52 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: New module: CGI::Tooltip > > >OK that was the first part of my proposal (and I find your >explication for its dismissa fine) but as was explained in the >original posting, this module needs a library to be installed. >Wouldn't it be nice for the people browsing around to get that >information right away? > >Would CGI::Tooltip::Whateverlibrary be acceptable? > >N. > > >"Martyn Pearce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] e.corp.gs.com... > I am not convinced of this. As I read it, the developer using CGI::Tooltip > needs no Javascript knowledge; I think I would see CGI::Javascript::Tooltip > and immediately exclude it as I have no knowledge of Javascript. It should > be made clear in the docs of the module that javascript is required at > the client end, but clearly tooltips are meaningless without a gui, > and very few > GUI browsers are not javascript-enabled. I'm all for meaningful > names, but > they don't have to carry all the documentation in one line.
> >-----Original Message----- > >From: khemir nadim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >I think it would be appropriate to further catalogue the module name > >under "Java" or the name od the specific library you interface with.
