[Python-Dev] fwd. from Paul Prescod

[Andrew M. Kuchling]

This is a forwarded e-mail from the XML-SIG mailing list, in which
Paul makes some good points.  Some context: I've been arguing against
adding more XML stuff to the base Python distribution, because 1) it's
bloat for those people don't care about XML, and 2) the Distutils is
supposed to fix this by making installing things easier.  Paul's
response, below, has shaken my conviction a bit (*only* a bit,
though).  If it's deemed valuable, perhaps the XML-SIG could
concentrate on the minimal set of parser + SAX + DOM that could be
included in 1.6.

Please join the XML-SIG to follow the specifics of this thread
further, as it relates only to XML.  As a more general philosophical
question for python-dev: do we want to add things to 1.6 following the
"batteries included" philosophy?  Or should we wave in the direction
of the distutils and say they'll fix the problem?  (In which case they
should be given high priority, as in "1.6 doesn't ship until they're
done".)

-- 
A.M. Kuchling			http://starship.python.net/crew/amk/
And after all, why should I go to bed every night? Sleep is only a habit.
    -- Cornelius Van Horne


Paul Prescod writes:
>"Andrew M. Kuchling" wrote:
>> 
>> Huh?  There's obviously a good deal of stuff in there, some of it
>> perhaps too esoteric, but I don't see where there's overlap.  
>
>Well, there are several parsers and parser wrappers. How is a user
>supposed to choose? And there is PyDOM, Minidom and qp_dom.
>
>> Or are
>> you talking about Python tools in general, where there are 3 DOM
>> implementations?  (PyDOM, 4DOM, and ZDOM hiding inside Zope.)
>
>That too.
>
>> I lean against shoveling more stuff into 1.6; better to get the
>> Distutils widely used, which makes it easier to install *all* Python
>> extensions.
>
>I don't think that XML is any more of an "add-on" to a modern scripting
>language than URL support or regular expression support. I'm in the
>"batteries included" camp for this and several other reasons: 
>
>	* standard Python libraries may soon need XML support. If WebDAV takes
>off then there should be a libWebDAV right alongside libftp and libhttp.
>And libWebDAV will require XML
>
>	* there is a difference between theory and practice. In theory,
>distutils will be done soon and everything will be easy. In practice, it
>is the end of 1999 and at every conference I have to install the XML sig
>package on the machines of several people who haven't been able to get
>it going themselves. In practice, we can't wait for distutils because
>people are choosing their XML tools now.
>
>> >Ideally we would have one (or at most two!) implementation of each of
>> >the major specs:
>> >XML    >SAX   >Unicode    >XPath    >XPointer   >XSLT    >DOM
>> 
>> Do you mean "one implementation of each in a single package", or "one
>> implementation existing for Python, distributed separately"?
>
>With the possible exception of XSLT, one implementation of each *in
>Python 1.6*.
>
>> We need to come up with a position paper for developer's day, stating
>> what needs to be discussed.  Suggestions?  I'd propose focusing on
>> getting the XML-SIG package to 1.0, but that's just an idea.
>
>I don't see how the XML-SIG package can ever get to 1.0. Anybody can
>contribute code at anytime and thus far we've been totally flexible
>about putting it in. I think that's great. It just won't ever lead to a
>stable, carefully maintained, tightly interoperable package. Some of the
>maintainers of the individual pieces have probably lost interest and
>there is probably nobody that understands it all enough to integrate it
>nicely.
>
>-- 
> Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself
>