[XML-SIG] Developer's Day

[Andrew M. Kuchling]

Paul Prescod writes:
>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: 

Good arguments, and you've shaken my convictions enough that I
forwarded your posting to python-dev to get some reactions.  However,
thinking about it more, I still lean against inclusion.  (This is all
subject to Guido's say-so, of course; if he says something should go
on, I'll bow to his decision.)  Some observations:

    * Python revisions come out slowly, once every year or two.  XML
    standards have been revolving faster , and we don't want to wait
    until 1.7 for SAX2, or DOM Level2, or other new revisions.
    Keeping the modules out of the core lets them be updated at their
    own pace.  A counterargument is that the XML specs are slowing
    down -- add namespace support to SAX, and finalize DOM
    Level 2, and I don't think any other standards are very important
    to basic XML programming.

    * We really want a C-based parser to be commonly available.
    sgmlop is the only reasonable choice for this, because I'd be
    against including Expat.  To replay some arguments I made against
    including the zlib library in 1.6, what if a C extension requires
    a newer version of the library?  Symbol conflicts if you're lucky,
    hard-to-debug problems if you're not.

    * We can drop various marginal bits of the CVS tree; the xmlarch
    support is probably not of very wide interest, for example.

>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.

I think I'm on the record as saying that Python's major problems now
aren't language-related, but are with the development environment.
Language changes (from minor, like 'for i in 1..9', to major, like
fixing the type/class dichotomy or adding static types) aren't going
to bring in piles of new users, useful though they might be to
experienced Pythoneers, large projects, or some other specific
application.

Instead, the problem areas are having documentation for everything,
finding Python extensions, installing them, distributing applications,
and so forth.  These problems affect all Python programmers, and we
can't duck them forever by shoveling things into the base
distribution.  If installing things is a problem, then we need to
buckle down and finish the distutils.  So, overall, I'd still vote
against inclusion in 1.6.

>I don't see how the XML-SIG package can ever get to 1.0. Anybody can

No, it's *got* to reach 1.0.  The point of the package is that it's
exactly *one* thing to install that gives basic XML tools; you don't
need to chase down the SAX modules from Lars' page, PyExpat from
ftp.cwi.nl, sgmlop from pythonware.com, and so forth.  If the
Distutils made it as easy as:

python fetchpackage.py SAX PyExpat DOM sgmlop
   <find PySAX's home site>
   <download it>
   <compile & install>
   etc...

then much of the need for a single package goes away, but, as you
point out, that isn't currently the case.

-- 
A.M. Kuchling			http://starship.python.net/crew/amk/
We were here before any other city that now stands. And we will sing the
funeral songs that are sung for cities for them when they die.
    -- The role of the Necropolis Litharge, in SANDMAN #55: "Cerements"