Agreed that the HTML_Common API might use some updating.
However, is it fair to use one developer's future plans as a reason to change a current proposed name from another developer? Under that model, I think it may become too easy to "squat" on a namespace indefinitely.
I guess what I'm saying is that if we are to allow someone to such a prime real estate, then it should offer a good alternative.. (even if I didnt do it ;)
I am *not* impugning your character or intentions, Alan, as you have always been forthright and upstanding on the list, not to mention patient, polite, and thoughtful. I just don't like the idea of setting that kind of precedent; I think you can see why the idea unsettles me.
If there is to be discussion about naming, I figure it should be about the best name for the package under consideration, not about packages that are not yet in the system. Maybe that's just me.
Yeah - I'm not that keen on placing any kind of precident. - However, it is a similar situation to why HTML_Template never existed as a package, as there are a few fundimentally different ways to implement templates (although the current 100+ that are googlable is exagerating it a bit).. technically there is a bit of a precident for reserving names, or being carefull in allocating them....
Regards
Alan
--
Can you help out?
Need Consulting Services or Know of a Job?
http://www.akbkhome.com