Without even considering what your module does, I think the following questions should be asked and answered:

• What problems are you trying to solve?
• Why are you trying to solve it?
• What other solutions are available?
• Why is your solution better?
• What limitations arise from your solution?

One of the first modules I considered uploading to the CPAN involved debugging CGI programs. After a bit of research, I quickly discovered that I added only marginal value, and the costs of my solution outweighed the benefits. Hence, the module is not on the CPAN.

However, if you feel that the benefits outweigh the costs, then seek input from others (which you are doing) and see what they have to say. While Perlmonks has been an excellent resource on getting my problems solved, I feel that it's been a mixed bag regarding code reviews. A classic example is tachyon's RFC CGI.pm refactoring. Many monks discouraged him and he had to follow up with CGI::Simple vs CGI.pm - Is twice as fast good enough?. The CGI module, while very popular, is getting on in years and needs some competition. Competition is a good thing, but reinventing the wheel needs very serious consideration.

To get better feedback, you may wish to try the module authors list. Again, I've had mixed results, but since I strongly encourage well-thought out competition, I say go for it!

That being said, your module seems like a stepping stone between CGI.pm's HTML generating functions and using a proper templating system. There is definitely a gap, but I am not sure of the value of filling it.

Cheers,
Ovid

New address of my CGI Course.
Silence is Evil (feel free to copy and distribute widely - note copyright text)