Good questions! I proposed that it belongs in the XML namespace because, depending on its usage, it is essentially (a) an XML variant, or (b) an XML authoring/visualization tool. Of course I'm open to guidance here - any alternatives in mind?
I guess was thinking of putting in XML::Terse rather than XML::Parser::Terse because it will have other functionality than just being an Expat replacement - for one, it also has routines to turn XML into tXML, which isn't parsing at all. Rather, it will be a collection of tools for parsing and generating tXML, only part of which is an Expat lookalike API. - Jon On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, A. Bergman wrote: > > XML::Terse will provide support for reading and writing XML > > document trees represented in Terse XML (tXML). An XML document and > > the corresponding tXML document contain precisely the same > > information (and can be converted back and forth losslessly), but > > tXML is much easier for humans to read and write. I'm using it as a > > configuration file format for some internal projects, and the > > feedback has been quite positive. (People love XML, but they hate > > its syntax.) > > > > XML::Terse can be used as a drop-in replacement for > > XML::Parser::Expat, so nearly all the XML classes can use its > > functionality transparently. > > > > The choice of namespace should be obvious I think! > > > > If the API is identical but the backing file is different, does it > belong > in the XML namespace? > > Perhaps it does, but maybe it should be XML::Parser::Terse ? > > Arthur >
