[XML-SIG] Which DOM implementation?
and-xml at doxdesk.com
Thu Jun 24 22:10:31 EDT 2004
Derek Fountain <derekfountain at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> is making things less clear instead of more so!
Sorry about that. It was compiled as a guide to what areas to avoid when
using the Python DOMs, rather than a comparison table as such.
> The table suggests there are two minidom implementations: one in the Python
> package itself, and one in the PyXML package.
Sort of. They're the result of same development process though. minidom
is developed in PyXML, and a snapshot is copied into the Python tree
every so often. The versions distributed with Python don't always seem
to correspond with exactly one release of PyXML, so I grouped them
> It looks like the PyXML version is a little more compliant - is that a
> fair assessment?
Only because the PyXML trunk is generally at a later stage of
development than the Python branch. For example, the minidom for Python
2.3 was, IIRC, taken between the 0.8.2 and 0.8.3 PyXML versions, so its
behaviour is very similar to the latest PyXML version.
> Was [4DOM] donated to the PyXML project by FourThought?
> Finally, 4Suite appears to have 3 DOM packages available, none of which
> appears to be especially compliant. I was under the impression that cDomlette
> was built with speed in mind. I'm not sure about pDOM and FtMD.
pDomlette (or FtMiniDom in later versions) is built for compatibility
with cDomlette, as a backup for when the C extension isn't available.
It's not really an implementation you'd target in its own right.
> Which Python based DOM implementation is the best in terms of compliance to
> the W3C specification?
I would naturally plug my own. ;-)
(Speaking of which, pxdom 1.1 will be out this week. It's got external
entities and everything. How exciting. If you like that kind of thing.)
mailto:and at doxdesk.com
More information about the XML-SIG