Perl::* given that it modifies Perl semantics for a keyword,
eg Perl::NotVersion or something similar.
I'm not recommending any of these specifically, just trying to suggest
alternatives to Acme::* if your module is "serious" (which to me it seems to
be).
--
Robin Berjon <[E
ards 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.
umer-selection code more open to the
outside world so that packages like AxPoint would not need to reimplement it.
If you have any suggestion in that area, please send them to me (in personal
mail as this is not the place) and I'll incorporate them into what is already
there.
--
Robin Berjon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
and wrong.
-- H.L. Mencken(1880-1956)
On Monday 08 July 2002 12:48, Tim Bunce wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Robin Berjon wrote:
> > > Applications of XML often tend to go directly under the XML::
> > > namespace.
>
> Be careful here... The XML namespace should be reserved for modules
> where manipu
On Saturday 06 July 2002 22:17, D. Hageman wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Robin Berjon wrote:
> > Given that it is a DOM wrapper, why not simply XML::TEILite?
>
> I guess the only reason why I didn't go with XML::TEILite is that I
> thought as TEI becomes more established th
espace of
its own. XML::Schema is probably a bad choice too, as people would indeed
think that it is an implementation of W3C XML Schema (and if they have any
sense, run away fast ;).
Given that it is a DOM wrapper, why not simply XML::TEILite?
--
Robin Berjon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- for h
rstand if you'd turn help down). It's
just that if there's a way in which I can help, I'd love to. I certainly owe
it to the community ;)
Take care,
--
Robin Berjon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
I'm not a complete idiot - some parts are missing!
