Proposal: splitting the network package

Oliver Charles ollie at
Thu Jan 17 08:25:59 CET 2013

On 01/17/2013 01:50 AM, Johan Tibell wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Kazu Yamamoto <kazu at> 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

More information about the Libraries mailing list