package similar to XML::Simple

Josiah Carlson jcarlson at
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.
  - Josiah

More information about the Python-list mailing list