On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 01:32:09PM -0800, Chris Mungall wrote: > > > 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
The "Decription" field n PAUSE and the Module List has to be useful for something :) > 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. At least make sure you include 'XML' and 'tree' in the description. Tim.
