[XML-SIG] Worth keeping xml-ref?

[Andrew Kuchling]

On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 08:11:59AM -0400, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
>I agree; as long as we can add to the document as we change PyXML,
>it's worth keeping.  What's missing can be documented slowly; doing it
>all at once is particularly painful.

I'm just doubtful it'll ever happen.  A reference manual would be a
lot of work cutting-and-pasting from the code into a TeX document;
boring!  Autogeneration seems the only way we'll ever see anything
resembling 

As an aside, Sean McGrath's XPipe project has a browsable pydoc tree
for PyXML 0.6.4: http://xpipe.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/doc.py?module=xml

>Thanks!  Cleaning house certainly makes it easier to maintain the
>house.

On that note, while making the list of modules (there are something
like 277 *.py files under xml/ !), I noticed a few things that could
be deprecated.  

* xml.schema.trex : Trex effort is now going into RELAX NG.
* Should the SAX1 classes be deprecated?
* qp_xml: does it provide anything that pulldom doesn't?
* xml.dom.ext.Visitor: is this still needed with the addition of 
  DOM Level 2's TreeWalker?

Deprecation would have to be gradual, of course, following Python's
approach of "remove docs in first version; add warnings in second
version; remove code in third version".  

--amk