package similar to XML::Simple

[Uche Ogbuji]

Stuart Bishop <stuart.b at commonground.com.au> wrote in message news:<mailman.6.1076585559.698.python-list at python.org>...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> On 12/02/2004, at 4:43 AM, Peter Hansen wrote:
> 
> > The fact that the PyRXP maintainers have apparently refused to fix this
> > problem *does* justify the complaint Uche is making, and I support him
> > in that now.  I wasn't aware that anyone had even tried reporting the
> > problem in the first place and was objection to an apparent 
> > overreaction.
> 
> This isn't quite correct. ReportLab were more than happy to
> take my patch on board, and if you install pyRXP from CVS you
> get *two* parsers (pyRXP and pyRXPU). I personally don't
> consider pyRXP an XML parser, as it is deliberately lacking what
> is in my opinion the single most useful feature of XML (unambiguous
> and universal Unicode support). For what Reportlab and others use
> if for, however, it is quite sufficient.
> 
> It is unfortunate that the release on ReportLab's web site
> is way out of date (possibly over a year), but they may have
> more pressing concerns, or possibly nobody has even asked.
> Not that it is really *their* problem - the code is GPL and
> *anybody* with the time could release a fresh package.

First of all, Stuart, I'd like to thank you greatly for PyRXPU.  It
was very much needed and provides another truly compliant option for
Python-XML processing.  The more the merrier but having non-conformant
options such as the default packaging of PyRXP is IMO detrimental.

I too hope that PyRXU becomes the default in future packaging, and
that PyRXP is clearly marked as a super-fast option for those who
don't really need a true XML parser.  Not that I know why such a group
would not just use plain old super-super-fast delimited ASCII.

I did point out PyRXPU multiple times in this thread and credited you
for it.


> > If the presence of a bug in a program means that one cannot label the
> > program as being what it is intended to be, then all software would 
> > have
> > to be released with disclaimers like "this is supposed to be a Python
> > interpreter, and might be someday, but isn't yet because there are some
> > rare cases where it doesn't correctly interpret Python".
> 
> Classifying a lack of Unicode support in an XML parser as a
> 'bug' is ridiculous.

My point exactly.  It would be like calling it a "bug" if something
that called itself Python only accepted tabs for indentation rather
than spaces. Such a thing just simply wouldn't be Python.


> I must admit that I was a bit miffed when
> I first tried out 'the fastest validating XML parser around'
> and found out it couldn't validate XHTML, ONIX or anything
> except trivial examples I coded up - I got the impression that
> someone who didn't understand XML had gotten a bit overexcited.
> When I looked into it further, it became clear that pyRXP was
> not what I would call an XML parser *by design* and that
> ReportLab's definition of XML was slightly more flexible than
> mine :-)

And we're grateful for PyRXPU which does meet the only valid
definition of XML.  :-)

--Uche
http://uche.ogbuji.net