Hi,

2010/9/9 Aaron Patterson <aaron / tenderlovemaking.com>:
>>  pros:
>>   - newbie tends to search library from stdlib first, but REXML
>>     should not be used.  By deprecating REXML (but not unbundled)
>>     and providing Nokogiri, we can indicate to newbie the right
>>     road.
>>
>>     -> rebuttal: even if it is really needed, it is enough to
>>        deprecate REXML.
>
> I agree with this rebuttal.  No XML parser is better than a poor one.
> OTOH, it seems that people like having an XML parser ship with Ruby.
> Why not ship a good one?

I agree that people want Nokogiri.  But if we import a library to ruby
package whenever people want it, ruby package will become too huge.

Thus it is a weak reason, unfortunately.
We need more convincing motivation.  For example, if rubygems depend
on Nokogiri, it would be very convincing :-)


>>   - Nokogiri may not preserve separate releases
>
> I'm not sure about this.  Other stdlib package have had separate
> releases (rake, etc).  Though, I hope that stdlib is turned to gems so
> this is easier (I'll respond to the gems thread).

As I said in [ruby-core:32054] and [ruby-core:32066], rake, etc. are
NEVER going well.  I don't like to add new source of trouble.

Indeed, this problem may be solved by converting stdlibs to gems.
But it has some objections and is still under discussion.  We should
not rely on the assumption at this time.


> I think the best options to improve the situation are:
>
>   1. Remove REXML so that users must search for an XML library
>
>   2. Package nokogiri so that users have a better alternative
>
>   3. Remove REXML *and* package nokogiri
>
> I understand we cannot remove REXML for 1.9.x, but maybe we should
> consider packaging nokogiri so people have an alternative?  I would like
> to see #2 for Ruby 1.9.3+, then #3 for Ruby 2.0.

The point of issue is, why is this not enough?

  0. Deprecate REXML so that users must search for an XML library

-- 
Yusuke Endoh <mame / tsg.ne.jp>