[XML-SIG] New XML module
uche.ogbuji at fourthought.com
Fri Nov 11 22:48:10 CET 2005
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 15:21 -0600, Richard Salz wrote:
> > In retrospect I
> > think it was a mistake to even bless SAX and DOM by putting them in the
> > stdlib.
> On the one hand I agree with this -- why should these pigs be better than
> any other animals on the farm -- but on the other hand, as someone who
> wants to build higher-level facilities on top of XML, it's a real pain.
> "The nice thing about standards is that there's so many to choose from"
> was a complaint, not praise, and string.replace('standards', 'doms') does
> not make it any better.
Well WXS was supposed to be the one schema standard to choose from,
right? ;-) I also wonder how many people will accept XQuery as the
default way to access collections of XML.
But taking tongue out of cheek, I think my problem with your point lies
in "string.replace('standards', 'doms')". I'm quite fine with the idea
of minidom as the Python standard DOM (even though I prefer our own
Domlette). But this is not a matter of blessing one of many DOMs, it's
a matter of blessing one of many processing idioms entirely. DOM is but
one class. Here is a categorization I've used:
A. Python DOMs: minidom, Domlete, pxdom, etc.
B. Python Infosets: ElementTree, pyRXPu, etc.
C. XML-schema-driven data bindings: GenerateDS, etc.
D. Python-schema-driven data bindings: XIST, Guido's module (I think),
E. Non-schema-driven data bindings: Amara bindery, xmltramp, Gnosis,
F. Call-back stream APIs: SAX, PyExpat, etc.
G. Iterator stream APIs: ElementTree iterparse, Amara pushbind, pulldom,
Python's stdlib currently blesses one from A, two from F and one from G.
Guido's proposal would add one from D. I suppose one could argue that
it's OK to have one from each category, but I say that would just
confuse the heck out of users. One could argue that even having 5
entries would confuse the heck out of users. Or is that no worse
confusion than having two dozen viable third-party options? I don't
I do know one thing: I can think of situations where I would prefer
each of A through G. Some idioms really are better than others for some
tasks. XML is incredibly diverse, and I think it's very hard to pick
one-size-fits-all solutions. That's the main concern that gives me
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
More information about the XML-SIG