package similar to XML::Simple

["Martin v. Löwis"]

Peter Hansen wrote:
>>If a parser prints a message "not a valid 8-bit XML character", then it
>>can't be an XML parser. XML does not have a notion even remotely related
>>to "8-bit characters".
> 
> 
> Aren't we talking about semantics now, and rather tritely at that?  

Not at all. This message indicates a lack of understanding of basic
principles of XML on the side of the authors of this error message.
One of the beauties of XML is interoperability and portability. Any
implementation that chooses to subset XML will sooner or later learn
that the mere idea of subsetting XML is misguided, and will give
up all limitations. Any user of such an implementation will get bitten
by the limitations sooner or later, and it is telling that Uche got
bitten at the very first document that he passed to the tool.

My favorite example of a (successful) correction of attitude is
XML-RPC. The original XML-RPC spec said that the string type is
used to represent "ASCII strings". People were asking whether this
is a constraint on the XML documents, and David Winer was responding
that you can use "full XML" in XML-RPC, with no restrictions. People
then were asking what else he meant by "ASCII strings", and eventually,
he simply removed the "ASCII" classification in the spec, thereby
allowing all characters that are allowed in XML.

> I'd call that throwing out the baby with the
> bath-water, if it means (a) nobody reports that as a bug, and (b) someone
> who could benefit from it even with that defect fails to do so because 
> it's illegal and immoral to label it an "XML parser", much as it might 
> want to be one, until it's perfect.

I don't use that package, so I'm in no position to report bugs on it.
With what I know now, I would discourage usage of the package at its
current state even for people who "could benefit from it".

Regards,
Martin