package similar to XML::Simple
jcarlson at nospam.uci.edu
Sat Feb 14 01:54:37 CET 2004
>>>>> Lack of Unicode support in an XML parser makes it unusable for
>>>>> most part of humanity. It's much worse than bug, it's a mistake.
>>>>Most of humanity doesn't use XML, so that's silly.
>>>Most of humanity doesn't use ASCII.
>>Most of humanity doesn't use computers.
> So... Should we write programs by drawing circles on the sand?
Of course not. But your initial assertion that the library is useless
to the majority of humanity, because it does not support unicode, is false.
I find the library useless because I don't use XML (explicitly), either
for storage or for IPC.
As for your comment about ASCII... Last time I checked, TCP/IP was
designed with the idea of 8-bit bytes and the ASCII character set (which
is why you see references to NULL, \r, \n, etc.). A large portion of
internet protocols (http, telnet, ftp, gopher, nntp, etc.), used for
communicating over TCP/IP, also refer to the same ASCII character set.
Considering the implementations of compilers for the C and C++
programming languages, those operating systems written using C and C++,
most likely have source code stored in ASCII (I doubt you could find a
major OS with non-ASCII characters that is written in C/C++). This
would include Microsoft, Linux, Apple, Sun, SGI, etc. I'll leave it up
to you to come up with the use percentages.
On the other hand, we could talk about embedded systems (which dwarfs
the PC industry), but there you'll also find ASCII, because the
compilers for the 8,16,32 bit processors in embedded systems, are
sitting on some standard machine using Windows or *nix, both of which
were written in C/C++, with source code stored in ASCII format.
It is funny how ASCII is everywhere.
More information about the Python-list