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
>
