On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Tim Bunce wrote: > Few people are aware of that. "Cipher" would generally be taken to mean encryption > (probably a database of ciphers in that case). > > There's no need for a framework name to be descriptive - so long > as it doesn't imply something different. > > Of the suggestions above RosettaDB, or just Rosetta seems okay to me. > Or there's always DuncanDB :) > > Tim.
Well, Tim and Brian appear to see eye-to-eye, more or less. It looks like "Rosetta" is what I will aim for then. I like the name too, even if there might be confusion for human language specialists. To make this simple, I will submit a separate module registration request under that name. I would normally be able to do it right now, but I have the feeling I should rewrite the Description included with it first, so it may not be done until the weekend ... or this evening ... I will try for at least a draft this evening, which should be enough. Let me ask you this: Are there *any* other registered modules or frameworks on CPAN whose names are the same as their author's names, or derived from such? I don't remember seeing any. And I wouldn't want to do that myself, since it seems silly in the same way as naming something "Yet Another [something]"; it doesn't have anything to say about the uniqueness of the work. So, thank you (collectively) for all your help. I will be back. -- Darren Duncan
