package similar to XML::Simple

[Peter Hansen]

Alan Kennedy wrote:
> 
> I think that the point Martin is making (and one which I wouldn't dare
> disagree with him on ;-) is that the unwillingness to comply 100% with
> the XML spec was a *design decision* on behalf of the PyRXP authors,
> not a bug.

Well, if that were the case, it would have helped if someone, anyone,
had said so at the time they said "not an XML parser".  Perhaps I should
have inferred earlier, from such comments, that they knew that this was
a firm decision by the authors, and not a simple bug.

> Choosing to actively ignore parts of a standard eliminates the right
> to claim standards-compliance, IMHO. Standards are there for the
> express purpose of encouraging interoperability. If a software
> designer wants to sacrifice a part of that standard for performance
> reasons, or reasons of code complexity, testing difficulty, etc, then
> their software is not a complete implementation of the standard, and
> should not claim to be so.

Completely agreed!

Hmm... makes me want to check their web site, to see what this is really
about:

'''RXP is a very fast validating XML parser written by Richard Tobin of 
the University of Edinburgh. It complies fully with the W3C test suites 
(although we have compiled it without Unicode support for the time being). 
We would like to thank Richard Tobin and Henry Thompson of the Language 
Technology Group for making this code available to the world.
'''

Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.  Might even be why, when I downloaded
and tried to use it (and got good results) a year or two ago, I had no
qualms about using it.  Clearly stated, and to the point, except that one
is left to make the small connection between "compiled without Unicode
support" and "doesn't handle character entities".  (Or is it that it 
handles character entities, but not those beyond 127?  Probably moot.)

Doesn't this imply that anyone, at any time, could choose to recompile
*with* Unicode support, which is presumably _in place_ but just optionally
left out of the standard distribution?

So it's neither a bug, nor a design decision, but a packaging choice.

I think I'm back to saying that "not an XML parser!!!!" is a bit of an
unfair reaction, given how open they are about the situation.

-Peter