[libxml-devel] Libxsl 0.6.0 release

[Sean Chittenden]

>>>> Last, the project name on rubyforge is libxsl which is  
>>>> incorrect.  It
>>>> should be libxslt since its wrapping the libxslt library
>>>> (http://xmlsoft.org/XSLT/).  Is it possible to change names?
>>
>>> That would require creating a new rubyforge project. Do you think  
>>> it's
>>> worth the transition?
>>
>> No, not really.  But it would be nice to be consistent.
>
> True. I am willing to transition. I suppose if Sean feels it's worth
> it the we can move forward with it.

I'm pretty indifferent.  The reason for 'libxsl' versus 'libxslt' was  
twofold.

1) The "T" is a verb (transformation), not a thing.  XML is a thing.   
XSL is a thing.  XSLT is an action done on an XML document using the  
XSL spec.  Or that's how I saw it at the time (remember, this is  
coming from the same group of folks that standardized "referer" vs.  
"referrer")

2) 'libxml'.length == 'libxsl'.length  It just looked more consistent  
when shown in a directory listing.  <:~)

>> As for renaming the gems from libxml-ruby to libxml and libxslt- 
>> ruby to
>> libxslt, do you think that's worth it?  Seems like it would break
>> upgrading (you'd have libxml-ruby and libxml installed, which one  
>> wins?).
>
> I think it is, b/c it creates consistency across the gem name, the
> library directory name and the module name.
>
> Indeed, there is a potential for library conflict (an example of the
> weaknesses of Ruby's require system actually). We will just have to
> make a special emphases to users about this transition. A good way to
> handle it might be to release as libxml-ruby/libxslt-ruby and then
> immediately release the same versions as libxml/libxslt in order to
> facilitate a smooth a transition as possible.


Break the compatibility now, get it over with.  There's renewed  
interest and development happening at the moment, so now is absolutely  
the right time.  Waiting will only make things more painful.  -sc

--
Sean Chittenden
sean at chittenden.org