Consider generalizing to all schema libraries

[sam-goodwin]

My concerns regarding the library's name are related to the fact that we have three different paths to consider, each with its own benefits:

1. Option 1: Keep the library name as zod-class, linking it to Zod. As we continue to add support for other validation/schema libraries, we can create new packages (probably inside a monorepo) for each of them with the -class suffix (e.g., yup-class, arktype-class).

   • The main advantage of this approach is that it would likely improve SEO for those searching for class support for each library (that's how I found zod-class, by the way).

2. Option 2: Create a single package with a user-friendly name that references both classes and schemas, and provide built-in support for as many libraries as possible (similar to typeschema).

   • The library name and description should be easy to find and remember.

3. Option 3: Create an organization with an appealing name that references classes and schemas, and publish one package for each library we support (e.g., @classy/zod, @classy/valibot).

   • This approach is a compromise between Options 1 and 2.

Let me know what do you think

Originally posted by @thawankeane in #5 (comment)