RE: Library hierarchy, contd.
Me: Likewise. I'm very happy with the broad structure now. There are only minor nits left (such as already mentioned by other people, e.g. FileFormat.Graphics -> FileFormat.Image).
Already made that change in my local copy. Great - it looks like we're converging. One other nit which I forgot about: can we capitalise Xml and Html to XML & HTML to be consistent (I think we already agreed to do this). Cheers, Simon
One other nit which I forgot about: can we capitalise Xml and Html to XML & HTML to be consistent (I think we already agreed to do this).
I vaguely remember agreeing the opposite - to use InitCaps throughout rather than ALLCAPS. Whatever. One other point - I have noticed that there is at least one other Haskell XML processing library (by Peter Thiemann) out there besides my HaXml. I don't want to claim any monopoly on the `best' or `standard' way of doing XML, so I'm inclined to go for `HaXml' as the base name of my package rather than stealing `Xml' prematurely. Hence, my vote would be for Text Html HaXml Regards, Malcolm
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 05:06:54PM +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
One other nit which I forgot about: can we capitalise Xml and Html to XML & HTML to be consistent (I think we already agreed to do this).
I vaguely remember agreeing the opposite - to use InitCaps throughout rather than ALLCAPS. Whatever.
One other point - I have noticed that there is at least one other Haskell XML processing library (by Peter Thiemann) out there besides my HaXml. I don't want to claim any monopoly on the `best' or `standard' way of doing XML, so I'm inclined to go for `HaXml' as the base name of my package rather than stealing `Xml' prematurely.
Hence, my vote would be for
Text Html HaXml
Would Text Html Xml HaXml the_other_one not make more sense? And personally I think XML and HTML should be all caps as they tend to be elsewhere. Ian
participants (3)
-
Ian Lynagh -
Malcolm Wallace -
Simon Marlow