[XML-SIG] Scriptics Connect
Paul R. Brown
Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:17:06 -0500
I agree with Fred's questions.
I also think that good products -- or even good looking products -- are
discouraging to see. I consistently think, "Doh. I thought about doing
that." But then I think of something else...
IMHO, the XML world is by no means fully formed. XPath is young, schemas
are just out of the gate, and there are still a *huge* number of problems to
solve. The buffet of fun stuff to do is going to remain open for a long
If we want to energize ourselves, let's pick a problem and work on it as a
group. Any suggestions?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
> Behalf Of Fred Yankowski
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 1999 9:47 AM
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [XML-SIG] Scriptics Connect
> On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 10:17:42AM -0400, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Has anyone seen this in action? What should be our response? Python
> > used to be #1 in the XML scripting world -- lately, I don't see that
> > much activity... :-(
> Well, what's our goal? The XML-SIG page says:
> With appropriate software packages, documentation, and a bit
> of publicity, Python could become the premier language for XML
> processing. The goal of this SIG is to decide what software is
> required for this purpose, and coordinate its implementation
> and documentation.
> So, where is the SIG falling short? Is there specific XML processing
> functionality that is missing? If so, what is the most important? Is
> the Python XML software too hard to install? Is the main problem a
> lack of documentation and examples? What are the most important
> problems that the XML-SIG could/should address now?
> Fred Yankowski <email@example.com>
> P.S. I've seen the "wish list" on the XML-SIG status page, but it
> seems to be a grab-bag of ideas that might not be current or complete,
> and the priorities are not obvious.
> XML-SIG maillist - XML-SIG@python.org