It follows general practice -- of naming the project, gem, lib directory and main module all the same. This is done to prevent people from stepping on each other toes, plus of course it provides convenience and consistency.Also, to use XML as our top-level namespace is to claim a sort of ownership to that name --in which case we might as well name the project "xml" too. Of course, we could argue that LibXML is *THE* xml library, so the namespace is appropriate. I'm just not sure that'sreally fair.
I agree. If things were starting from scratch, this would be a non-issue, LibXml would clearly be the right choice. The problem of course is things aren't starting from scratch.
So - say we switch to a LibXML namespace. Then of course the first thing we would have to do is map the XML namespace to the LibXML namespace. Because if we don't, everyone's code will break, and that will result in unhappy users.
Thus I don't see much point in changing. It was a mistake for sure, but one that was made and is now undoable. And I suppose on the bright side, no other module has claimed the XML namespace, has it (I guess we get squatters rights).
Charlie
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ libxml-devel mailing list libxml-devel@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
