Please consider renaming the library to a clearer, self-descriptive name for discoverability

[maliknajjar]

Hi 👋

First of all — thank you for this project. This router is one of the best Svelte 5 SPA routing solutions I’ve tried.

I wanted to raise one concern regarding the package name: wjfe-n-savant is extremely hard to discover, pronounce, remember or search for.

It is not self descriptive, so when people search for “Svelte 5 router”, “Svelte SPA router”, etc — your library doesn’t show up anywhere. The only thing the internet shows is svelte5-router, even though your library is much better.

But the more serious problem is: the name is not memorable even for someone who used it already.
I used this library in my own project — and later when I tried to search for it again, I literally couldn’t find it because I could not even remember the name to search for it. That alone means 99% of potential users will never find it in the first place.

Your library deserves adoption — but naming is a huge part of discoverability.
A more self descriptive name would massively help the project be found, referenced, linked and talked about.

Thank you again for the amazing work 🙏

[webJose]

First and foremost: Thank you for the kind words and recognition. I humbly agree that this router does the job and delivers solidly. 😎

Second: SEO is a tricky thing. For example, the title is driven by the project's description, which is properly set, I think, as well as keywords. Mateo's router came to be a bit earlier than mine, and I suppose that timing has taken the first places in SEO.

Third: I'm open to suggestions. No worries. Fire away possible names.

[maliknajjar]

Thanks for being open to suggestions.

After thinking about it, I believe the best approach is to go simple and highly recognizable. In the React ecosystem, react-router is the default, widely known SPA router. For Svelte, there isn’t yet a clear “default” for Svelte 5, so naming it in the same vein would make it instantly discoverable and familiar for developers.

My gut feeling is that a name like svelte-router hits the sweet spot: it’s short, intuitive, SEO‑friendly, and immediately communicates what the library does. It might not be flashy, but simplicity here is actually a strength — it will make the library easier to find, adopt, and reference in the community.

[webJose]

Welcome to the world of naming: https://www.npmjs.com/package/svelte-router

Already taken.

[webJose]

After discussing a bit with Copilot, Copilot says that maybe a scope name change is best. Its suggestion was terrible, though: @sveltekit-tools. As if this were Sveltekit-only.

But that's another way to go: Create a new scope for the router and its extension packages (like @wjfe/n-savant-sk for Sveltekit).

[webJose]

What would you say about using the @svelte-router organization name? It was free, so I reserved it. If this sounds reasonable, this package would be renamed to @svelte-router/core (or @svelte-router/spa), and its Sveltekit extension package would be @svelte-router/sveltekit (or @svelte-router/sk).

[maliknajjar]

I actually anticipated that svelte-router was already taken, but that package is for Svelte 3 and is outdated. If your library were named svelte-router and supported Svelte 5, it would effectively become the main, most relevant spa router for svelte.

Even though the name is taken on npm, you can still keep using the @WJFE scope and keep the package name as svelte-router. This is similar to how React handled it: the npm package is called react-router-dom because react-router was already taken, but the library is still known simply as React Router.

That said, I think reserving the @svelte-router scope is actually a brilliant idea, especially for future extensions. The npm package could be @svelte-router/core, which is how people would install it, but the package itself can still be branded as Svelte Router.

[maliknajjar]

you can name the sveltekit extension @svelte-router/kit

[webJose]

Ok, so you prefer:

• @svelte-router/core
• @svelte-router/kit

But would be OK with:

• @wjfe/svelte-router
• @wjfe/svelte-router-sk
• @wjfe/svelte-router-kit

Am I summarizing correctly?

[maliknajjar]

Yes exactly, but I think @wjfe/svelte-router-kit is better than @wjfe/svelte-router-sk
the sk part is hard to get instantly

[webJose]

While re-writing documentation, I noticed/remembered that this package has the /core sub-path, so imports look weird: import { isConformantState } from "@svelte-router/core/core;.

Accepting suggestions. For now, I'm thinking @svelte-router/base, so those imports will import from "@svelte-router/base/core". Alternatives could include renaming the sub-path instead.

[maliknajjar]

I think its better to change the sub-path instead. maybe you can name it utils?
import { isConformantState } from "@svelte-router/core/utils;

[webJose]

• @svelte-router/core/guts - Too graphic?
• @svelte-router/core/nucleus - Too scientific?
• @svelte-router/core/essential - Too esoteric?
• @svelte-router/core/kernel - I think this one!
• @svelte-router/core/runtime - My runner up.
• @svelte-router/core/rt - runtime, abbreviated.

Thoughts?