package similar to XML::Simple
paul at boddie.net
Fri Feb 13 09:49:03 CET 2004
uche at ogbuji.net (Uche Ogbuji) wrote in message news:<d116fbae.0402121130.6561b358 at posting.google.com>...
> Stuart Bishop <stuart.b at commonground.com.au> wrote in message news:<mailman.6.1076585559.698.python-list at python.org>...
> > Classifying a lack of Unicode support in an XML parser as a
> > 'bug' is ridiculous.
> My point exactly. It would be like calling it a "bug" if something
> that called itself Python only accepted tabs for indentation rather
> than spaces. Such a thing just simply wouldn't be Python.
I'm not sure that I can accept that particular analogy, and at least
there would be reasonable workarounds to get one's space-indented code
working under tab-only Python. A better analogy would be a version of
Python which only accepted identifiers in lower case, or which was
Meanwhile, having actually read your article (so it isn't just
speculation about what you've said on my part) I think you were
absolutely justified in pointing this issue out with PyRXP. There are
always going to be various "appendage measurement" competitions when
it comes to XML toolkit performance, but in my mind there are few
things worse in programming than suffering various elevated claims
about a piece of software whilst having to work up against some very
serious limitations. In any case, libxml2 is surely the big winner
when it comes to conformance plus performance, anyway.
More information about the Python-list