Bill Ward writes: > And being used on the NeXT argues even more against Mac:: or Apple:: > as a prefix.
Maybe. But I don't think it's a problem if a module doesn't precisely fit into the namespace its using. It's better to have a recognisable namespace which many people would associate with what your module does, than something so esoteric (or generic) that it conveys very little to most people. If plists are generally an Apple-y thing, and most people would associate them with Apple, then it isn't terrible to put them a namespace which labels them as such. > I think I like this best... Data::PList::XML (I'd use caps for the L). > Because it is generically Data:: Most things computers touch are data! XML is generally used for data, so all XML::* modules could be Data::XML::* instead, but that wouldn't really help. Most existing modules under Data:: seem to be more generic than dealing with a particular format (though there is Data::ICal). > Only thing is, my utility only parses them, it doesn't write them. That's definitely worth including in the name somewhere. Apart from anything else you want to leave room for somebody else to create and name a module which does write them. Smylers
