You have recoded a templating system, but you have not invented a templating syntax. Instead, you've borrowed the syntaxes of other templating systems. This is genius. Most of what I don't like about new templating systems is their idiosyncratic syntax, which their authors invariably defend as better when it is merely different.

Here you are with a pluggable meta-templating system apparently robust and complete, having never given in to the urge to design your own template syntax. Cue Applause.

As a user of template systems, I don't ultimately care about the implementation details (unless they make the system too slow to use or interfere with robustness). Rather, I care about the syntax, mostly that I don't have to learn a new syntax.

While you have not layered on top of existing templating systems -- in the way the DBI layers on top of various databases, because you have reimplemented the parsing -- you have created a generic facade from the template user's perspective.

Were I to market your system, I would focus on that. I would not say, "I've written my own templating system." Instead I would say, "No new syntax to learn here, just speed and flexibiliity to gain." In other words, focus on how users will approach the system not on how the internals work.

I wish you good luck indeed, whatever you call it.

Phil