On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 06:04, Chris Mungall wrote: > I have written a module for manipulating data using Simple Tree AGgregate > datastructures (recursive Structured TAGs), currently called XML::Stag > > This module is primarily a data manipulation tool. The data structure > happens to map well to a simplified subset of the XML spec, which means > that XML is a useful import/export format (as are lisp-style > S-expressions). This module can do a lot of the same things that current > XML modules can do (but with important differences, see below), so I think > it naturally falls into the XML:: namespace. Logically speaking, an > SExpression:: namespace makes as much sense, but XML:: seems a more > practical choice.
Hi Chris, There are already a whole lot (read, Way Too Many (tm)) modules in the XML namespace (see http://cpan.org/modules/by-category/11_String_Lang_Text_Proc/XML/). So your module might not really stand-out there. It does not seem to be based on an existing parsing library and from what I understand it parses only a subset of XML. This is dangerous too, and I think should be a sign that it does not belong in the XML namespace (and yes, I know there are already modules with those characteristics there, but lets not add to the confusion, we already suffer from the plethora of quasi-XML modules). So I would recommend you put it either in the SExpression namespace (that would be a new namespace right?) or maybe in the Tree namespace where it seems to fit nicely: http://search.cpan.org/modlist/Data_and_Data_Types/Tree Does this make sense? -- Michel Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
