Re: standards etc..

<jimw@apache.org> wrote in message news:20010823195212.2277.qmail@pb1.pair.com... > Daniel Andersson <daniel@avantnoise.com> wrote: > > may i ask why you prefer the new one? except for the fact that it's new ;o) > > this new standard doesn't seem very logic at all. > > it makes a lot of sense, when you think about it the right way. :) > > the directory structure mirrors the way the packages are put together. > you don't get one giant 'HTML' package, but a 'HTML_Table' and > 'HTML_Form' packages. (the advantage to this is that the release > cycles aren't tied together.) hum. okay, i can see this point. BUT, won't most of the HTML_* be dependent on HTML or? and if, then you still can't do minor releases but have to wait for HTML or HTML_* to finish. and even if you had it HTML/Form you could still do small updates/releases. just adding a small installer of some sort that will install the package into the right directory :o) me thinks. > > but the way these are laid out in the cvs tree will not necessarily > correspond to how they are installed. so to use the classes from the > HTML_Table package, you might "require 'HTML/Table.php'". (or, maybe > someday, "use 'HTML/Table'" which will then figure out whether to load > HTML/Table.php, HTML/Table.so, or HTML/Table.dll). very true. > > jim / d