[XML-SIG] Developer's Day position paper
Tue, 18 Jan 2000 04:36:56 -0800 (PST)
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> Some things on the list are quite simple; for example, consensus
> seemed to be that qp_xml.py should go into the tree. Greg, you want
> to go ahead and check it in?
I did not consider myself "authoritative" regarding the XML-SIG
distribution, so I never gave myself checkin privileges :-). I can go
ahead and do so, though, so that I can check in (and maintain) qp_xml.
> Adding qp_xml.py
> To the xml.parser package, presumably?
Either there or xml.utils. I think xml.parsers makes more sense, but am
open to opinion.
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/