Chris Dolan writes: > So, I already published it as FLV::Info, but this discussion has > convinced me that FileFormat::FLV is the best option.
I still don't see what's to be gained from having all modules that deal with specific file-formats grouped together -- or more specifically why that makes more sense than grouping them in Cad:: or Graphics:: or Spreadsheet:: or whatever else they are actually useful for. > The FF:: namespace is a terrible idea, in my opinion. Ditto. > I expect that it will be meaningless to the majority of module > searchers. Exactly -- even if you search by FLV, seeing FF::FLV in the results list doesn't help you at all. > As for the Flash:: namespace, I don't think that's best. While FLV > is primarily used in the Macromedia Flash Player ... However it's preferable for module names to be 'best fit' rather than 'pedantically accurate'. We want something that's meaningful to most people, even if technically it does more than that. > ... it is not Flash but is a standalone video format. Well how about Video::FLV or Video::Format::FLV then? (Or even Video::Flash::FLV?) > That would be like naming a CSS parsing module HTML::CSS::Parser, Yes, and I wouldn't object to that -- especially if CSS were a much less-well-known technology, such as > when CSS clearly has utility beyond just HTML, despite its dominant > usage. Yeah, but dominant usage is a great way of finding something. Anybody who wants to use CSS for something else is bound to know that HTML is its dominant usage. CSS has recently been used to format a book using Yes Logic's Prince ... but HTML was still used for the mark-up. Smylers -- May God bless us with enough foolishness to believe that we can make a difference in this world, so that we can do what others claim cannot be done.
