Re: Proposal: splitting the network package

On 01/17/2013 01:50 AM, Johan Tibell wrote:

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Kazu Yamamoto wrote:

...

Hello,

If I did not miss messages, many in favor of this proposal and no against. So, I think we reached clear consensus on splitting the network package.

One problem is naming. The author of the "uri" package dislikes to rename it (to cgi-uri for example).

So, I would like to take "network-uri" as I originally proposed. What do you guys think? I think it's good enough. I don't think it will win us any friends, but I think we should really consider if we're willing to do this. A big feature of the platform for me is intuitive discovery, and while having it listed in the platform is certainly a big pointer, clear naming also makes a big difference.

I'd still like to see the platform consider whether or not we can say "overruled" to the original author. Might not win me any friends, but it seems Network.URI is more expressive than Text.URI, and thus deserves that library name more. - Ollie