* Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-26 01:40]: >I don't like the repetition. Repeating "XML" adds no value to >the name for me.
Well, taken versus the XML::Template approach, it makes some amount of sense. With XML::Template you don’t actually write templates so much as grammars and instances of them; with my module, you write an template XML file. >I'll suggest "XML::Template::Strict", since your approach seems >to be stricter about validness than "XML::Template". Careful: well-formed != valid. I don’t do anything about validation; in terms of well-formedness, XML::Template is even stricter than the approach I’m following. I expect that my module will be capable of producing malformed markup if you try to coerce it hard enough – just not in any common scenario. Also, if anything, it would have to be XML::StrictTemplate, since XML::Template::Strict sounds like it has some sort of commonality with XML::Template, of which there is absolutely none. Any way to express “idiomatic” in a short word that’s suitable for a descriptive name? Maybe I should give up and just try to generically differentiate from XML::Template, like maybe XML::ExTemplate? Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
