data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4cf20/4cf20edf9c3655e7f5c4e7d874c5fdf3b39d715f" alt=""
Hi all, I'm currently thinking about what should be changed or fixed for lxml 2.0, a preliminary list is at the end of TODO.txt. As fixing the entity handling would visibly change the way parsers behave (more exceptions, stricter parsing, etc.), maybe this would rather go into that list. This is what I have for now: * reformat error log lines, add column number * always use '<string>' as URL when tree was parsed from string? (can libxml2 handle this?) * clean up (and remove?) duplicated API for extension functions * find a way to integrate Schematron (if it's available) * always use ns-prefixed type names in objectify's ``xsi:type`` attributes * remove ``findOrBuildNodeNs()`` from C-API (replaced by findOrBuildNodeNsPrefix) * lxml.html (Ian?) * clean support for entities (maybe an Entity element class?) * follow PEP 8 in API naming (avoidCamelCase in_favour_of_underscores) The list of trunk changes since 1.2.1 is already pretty long, and there were some major changes under the hood (even since 1.3beta), e.g. the namespace cleanup code, XSD type prefixing in objectify, exception messages, etc. Hence, I'm actually considering to skip the 1.3 release and to rather start working on 2.0 directly, so that we could have an alpha version soon. Maybe some more bug fixes could be backported into a 1.2.2 first, so that people can work with it, but a 1.3 would mean "new features". I would like to have the freedom to break a few things here in order to make their API cleaner. And that means 2.0, not 1.3. Comments? Stefan
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9b726/9b72613785319981a8800f418b99740492b56b75" alt=""
Stefan Behnel wrote:
I wouldn't expect to change anything outside lxml.html, so there's no real compatibility issue. Should I start putting stuff in there? I'd like to start by putting together the routines as I extract them from current projects, then cleaning up overlap or implementation issues. I could do it in a branch, but that would really only be to keep people from using it prematurely. -- Ian Bicking | ianb@colorstudy.com | http://blog.ianbicking.org | Write code, do good | http://topp.openplans.org/careers
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/776d2/776d27937dcc62255199c99b76119d7f75ea96e4" alt=""
Hi, I for one would love to have the latest & greatest features in a release sooner rather than later; as usual for me that's anything objectify-related :-) But then again I do not really know if it means a lot of extra-work to get out a release, and if the wait for 2.0 would actually be long at all. Tendency-wise I'm pro 1.3. Holger -- Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ee8c4/ee8c49a7972053fa849bdc7c06bf933514d3a829" alt=""
On 2007-05-29 11:52:44 +0200, jholg@gmx.de said:
Yeah. Release a 1.3 final and start with 2.0. I don't see any problems with the current 1.3 beta. So why not making it the 1.3 final then. -- Christian Zagrodnick gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstrasse 29 · 06112 halle/saale www.gocept.com · fon. +49 345 12298894 · fax. +49 345 12298891
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9b726/9b72613785319981a8800f418b99740492b56b75" alt=""
Stefan Behnel wrote:
I wouldn't expect to change anything outside lxml.html, so there's no real compatibility issue. Should I start putting stuff in there? I'd like to start by putting together the routines as I extract them from current projects, then cleaning up overlap or implementation issues. I could do it in a branch, but that would really only be to keep people from using it prematurely. -- Ian Bicking | ianb@colorstudy.com | http://blog.ianbicking.org | Write code, do good | http://topp.openplans.org/careers
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/776d2/776d27937dcc62255199c99b76119d7f75ea96e4" alt=""
Hi, I for one would love to have the latest & greatest features in a release sooner rather than later; as usual for me that's anything objectify-related :-) But then again I do not really know if it means a lot of extra-work to get out a release, and if the wait for 2.0 would actually be long at all. Tendency-wise I'm pro 1.3. Holger -- Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ee8c4/ee8c49a7972053fa849bdc7c06bf933514d3a829" alt=""
On 2007-05-29 11:52:44 +0200, jholg@gmx.de said:
Yeah. Release a 1.3 final and start with 2.0. I don't see any problems with the current 1.3 beta. So why not making it the 1.3 final then. -- Christian Zagrodnick gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstrasse 29 · 06112 halle/saale www.gocept.com · fon. +49 345 12298894 · fax. +49 345 12298891
participants (4)
-
Christian Zagrodnick
-
Ian Bicking
-
jholg@gmx.de
-
Stefan Behnel