[DOC-SIG] XML Extension Module?

[Paul Prescod]

Well, the concensus seems to be in favour of Sean's idea, which is great
with me. If we intend to build on top of James' code, then the important
concern shifts back to APIs. The Java folks are just working out an API
and if we wait for them to finish that (early January) then we will have
a good starting point for our own development efforts. We might even
decide to just use their API as it stands.

Once we define an API, and build wrappers for James Clark's xmltok, the
existing xmllib and for the various Java XML parsers (for JPython).

Anyone who wants to contribute to the development of that API should
join the xml-dev mailing list.
http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/index.html

Fred L. Drake wrote:
> 
>   I am presuming we're talking about material in xmltok.zip?  This
> still appears to be pretty preliminary (which might be why I found it
> in the test directory at ftp.jclark.com).  

xmltok is preliminary, but so is XML. It could still change between its
move from a proposed recommendation to a W3C recommendation. But Sean's
idea suggests that we should NOT start building our own, but just wait
for James to complete his implementation (which is quite likely to be
soon after XML is finalized). We should also wait for the APIs to shake
out. James might implement the Java guys' APIs or emulate his own SP
generic interface or he might do something else altogether.

-- 
Paul Prescod -- http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

Art is always at peril in universities, where there are so many people, 
young and old, who love art less than argument, and dote upon a text 
that provides the nutritious pemmican on which scholars love to chew. 
				-- Robertson Davies in "The Cunning Man"


_______________
DOC-SIG  - SIG for the Python Documentation Project

send messages to: doc-sig@python.org
administrivia to: doc-sig-request@python.org
_______________