Re: PEAR2 standards, we would like to know what you think

Jon Parise wrote:

On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 08:14:24AM +0200, Arnaud Limbourg wrote:

It is very important that you comment as these standards will define PEAR2.

This sentence doesn't make any sense to me:

    "PEAR2_ prefix is required of all class names, package names, however,
    will not have a PEAR2_ prefix because in most cases, the installation
    will be like:"

The "PEAR2_" prefix is required, but it won't be used in most cases? Or does this mean that the "PEAR2_" prefix is required for class names but not package names.

The sentence is not clear. An exemple is package HTTP_Request with a class PEAR2_HTTP_Request.

I appreciate the fact that English isn't the native language of many folks here, but it's very important to write clearly in standards documents to avoid ambiguity.

Indeed, thank you.

Also, this sentence is repeatedly spelled incorrectly throughout the document:

    "Exceptions maybe made to this rule with approval from the PEAR
    Group"

s/maybe/may be

Ok. Arnaud.