package similar to XML::Simple
peter at engcorp.com
Tue Feb 10 21:13:40 CET 2004
Brian Quinlan wrote:
> Peter Hansen wrote:
> > > I have no problem with the existence of PyRXP. It just isn't an XML
> > > parser.
> > Then there are very few XML parsers in the world, if one includes, say,
> > namespaces and validation as part of XML.
> An XML parser must be able to parse all (1) well-formed XML documents. The
> W3C XML recommendation provides a definition for well-formed XML documents,
> and can be found here:
> (1) I'll quality this a bit since the size of XML documents is unbounded
> and computer resources are.
Okay, granted. I'll withdraw my comments. I read too much into
Uche Ogbuji's objections, thinking he had problems with PyRXP on more
fronts than just the character entities question. If that's the only
defect in PyRXP, I suspect it's still somewhat ahead of a lot of other
"XML parsers" anyway, though clearly imperfect and arguably not yet
deserving of the label "XML parser".
I wonder whether this has been reported as a bug to Reportlab, however.
Maybe they simply didn't happen to have a test case that covered that
particular use of the parser... and they might be happy to fix it.
More information about the Python-list