Re: Proposal: XML_Util

Stephan Schmidt wrote:

Hi, I finished the first version of the XML utility class I was talking about. It's currently able to: - replace XML entities in a string - convert an array to an attribute string - build an XML declaration - split a qualified name (xslt:stylesheet) into namespace and local part - validate an XML name (there are rules for tag and attribute names) - create an XML tag The source is available at: http://www.php-tools.de/PEAR/XML_Util/XML_Util.phps And I added a small script that displays all methods: http://www.php-tools.de/PEAR/XML_Util/examples/example.php http://www.php-tools.de/PEAR/XML_Util/examples/example.phps Mainly we just have to decide on the name, the feedback I got is like this: XML_Util : 2

XML        : 1

XML_Common : 1 (but wouldn't object if called XML_Util) I'm in favour of XML, but XML_Util is fine for me. I'd like to release it in 24 hours (got no -1 and several +1) and if no one objects, I'll call it XML_Util. Stephan

I quite like the sound of XML_Common. To me a _Common class sounds like a class which contains code that is common to all (or even some) code. I think that XML_Base would be the name I'd choose for a Base class, not XML_Common. I'm +1 on XML_Common and indifferent on XML_Util - Davey p.s. Perhaps we should be thinking about creating an XML_Base package? What would it do? I'm sure theres some overlap between packages... and if that overlap is only the stuff in XML_Util, then *it* should be XML_(Base|Common), should not be static and will be added to over time.