package similar to XML::Simple

[Peter Hansen]

Stuart Bishop wrote:
> 
> Classifying a lack of Unicode support in an XML parser as a
> 'bug' is ridiculous. 

True, if it's not a bug.  If it were just a bug, then it wouldn't
be at all ridiculous.  As it isn't a bug, but a packaging choice 
(as it now seems) then you're quite right that it's not a bug!  :-)

> When I looked into it further, it became clear that pyRXP was
> not what I would call an XML parser *by design* and that
> ReportLab's definition of XML was slightly more flexible than
> mine :-)

Do you mean it doesn't handle addition things that are part of
the core XML standard?  Or are we still talking about *just* the
lack of Unicode?  I thought what I read on their web site made
it clear that it *does* support Unicode, but it was simply 
not enabled in the current compilation.  If that's true, then 
clearly it *is* an XML parser *by design*.

I must still be missing something here.  Sorry for being obtuse.

-Peter