* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [23 Oct 2003 08:01]:

[...]
> That sounds like a good idea, however I'm not sure about
> including DT::F::Mail and DT::F::HTTP. They seem to be
> fairly specific- task oriented modules.
>
> I admit that they're probably common tasks, but if I
> wanted a quick way to get up and going with DateTime, but
> it was for DBI, I'd be annoyed that I was getting net-
> related modules.

Their primary format is the one in their name, i.e. rfc
based formats. However both are capable of understanding
way more than that. With the exception of the DTF::Manip,
Mail and HTTP are probably the most flexible parsers. Though
DTF::Pg seems to have quite a few formats up its sleeves.

Personally, speaking as author of both, and as a non-Bundle
user, I don't really mind either way. As a DT user, Mail,
HTTP and W3CDTF cover 97% of all formatting and parsing
cases I come across. That's me and _my_ use cases though.


cheers,
-- 
Iain.                                          <http://eh.org/~koschei/>

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to