An XML parser is an XML parser. Period.

[Robin Becker]

In article <c2qugb$1qlh$1 at pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin
<richard at cogsci.ed.ac.uk> writes
>> So once more: AFAICT PyRXPU is an XML parser.  PyRXP is certainly not
>> an XML parser.  The substrate RXP is not an XML parser either when
>> compiled without Unicode support and although I respect Thompson and
>> Tobin as much as I do the PyRXP developers, they were really confusing
>> themselves and others when they said "It complies fully with the W3C
>> test suites (although we have compiled it without Unicode support for
>> the time being)."
>
>Sorry to respond to a thread long after its sell-by date.
>
>Just for the record, the statement above was made by the PyRXP people,
>not us.  RXP's 8-bit mode exists because it was originally written to
>replace a "normalized SGML" parser in an existing (8-bit) application.
>I wouldn't recommend compiling it in that mode for any except the most
>constrained applications.
>
>-- Richard
I guess that's why there are now two versions pyRXP & pyRXPU. Personally
I find XML pretty awful as a lingua franca, but everyone else seems to
think it's the new sliced bread. As to whether RXP is a good 'parser' my
latest test of pyRXPU (RXP 1.3.0) with James Clark's XML Test Cases
version 1998-11-18 gives

Ran 373 tests in 1.282s

FAILED (failures=2, errors=1)

Clearly I have some way to go and we'll have to work harder.
-- 
Robin Becker