On Wed,  1 Nov 2023 at 09:14, Philip Kaludercic wrote:

>>> I agree, from what I see this is just an implementation detail.  Plz is
>>> a peculiar enough name as it is, it shouldn't be inherited by packages
>>> that depend on it.  Or is there any reason why the package couldn't also
>>> use url.el?
>>
>> The packages is really closely tied to plz's API, which by the way is a
>> very nice one.
>
> But is this fact exposed to the user?

Totally.  Perhaps if you had a look into plz you would appreciate this
fact :-).