On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, darren chamberlain wrote:
> * Chris Mungall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-26 00:03]: > > I have written a module for manipulating data using Simple Tree AGgregate > > datastructures (recursive Structured TAGs), currently called XML::Stag > > Chris, > > This sounds like a great module, but, like others on this list, I > question the use of the XML namespace, since the module is not specific > to XML. Like Michel Rodriguez mentioned, I think the Tree namespace > might be more appropriate, or possibly Data. Tree doesn't seem right somehow - too algorithm focused? - but I like Data ...but then Data::STAG doesn't get across the fundamental 'tree'ness... hmm, I shall cogitate a while Overall I now think the XML namespace is a bad idea. However, it is a useful tool in certain XML architectures - it would be nice if this module were to show up at the end of searches, and if it were included as a sidenote as part of general round-up of XML module articles. Is there a prefered way to structure the POD documentation, or should I just leave it as it is? I guess there are so many XML modules this point is fairly moot. > On a related note, this is exactly the sort of module I wish someone had > written years ago for handling XML (even though I don't think it's use > should be exclusively XML), because it closely mirrors how I tend to > think of XML. I really hope it ends up *somewhere* on CPAN. Absolutely! Cheers Chris > (darren) > >
