On Tuesday 30 July 2002 18:37, Jean-Michel Hiver wrote: > On Tue 30-Jul-2002 at 05:10:57PM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 06:01:36PM +0300, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > > > I think Template::Petal will work just fine. XML::Template I do > > > not like, "XML::" is quickly becoming is as information-free as > > > "Sys::"" > > > > Agreed. > > Well, except that it's really what it's meant to be doing, processing > XML files... RSS, SVG, XHTML, VoiceXML, you name it.
If it were to be under XML::, then it would probably have to be something along the lines of XML::Template::Petal because XML::Template is too generic, and there already are other XML templating systems (a bunch of XSLT implementations, XPathScript, etc...). What your module is at heart is a templating system. I know that it works using attributes which would tend to link it to XML and HTML but you don't know where it might go in the future. There are other ways to glean attributes than the way it's done in XML and HTML. Perhaps someone will add functionality to somehow read in Pyx or YAML, or in fact anything that represents data structures so long as there's a way to look elsewhere in the tree and identify stuff as attributes. I'm pretty sure that the Mason folk would have been happier chosing Template::Mason than HTML::Mason, simply because what they do is templating much more than HTML, and even though 99% of the time Mason templates deal with HTML. I cannot speak for them, but imho if you ask their opinion the odds are they'll shout "Template::Petal" in unisson ;-) > If everyone agrees that this module is primarily a templating system > rather than an XML tool, fine. I'll be glad to remove the HTML > functionality and make it process stricly XML files if that makes more > sense. Removing the HTML bits would not be a prerequisite to going into into the XML namespace so long as it is primarily an XML tool and doesn't warp XML (eg XML::LibXML reads HTML as well). I know that the boundaries of what XML is are now very much blurred thanks to SAX being able to read and write anything, only pretending that it's XML in the middle but I still do think that Petal is more orientated towards templating than towards XML. In other words, it makes sense without the XML bits but doesn't do anything without the templating bits. As such, I think that Template::Petal just works great. -- Robin Berjon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Forty two.
