The concerns about which any given Ruby XML library does makes me wonder what, exactly, "XML out of the box" means.

Full W3C DOM Level 1 support?
DOM Level 2?
Non-W3C-DOM-but-more-Ruby-like?
SAX built-in?
SAX interface, but requires pluggable SAX parser?
XSLT? W3C Schema? XPath? XForms?, ...

"XML" means different things to different people; when people ask about learning XML,
or writing code for XML, it usually means more than just the XML recommendation.

There may be an argument for including the DOM and SAX "standards", but there should
also be a "Ruby way" API.


James


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tobias Reif [mailto:tobiasreif / pinkjuice.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 1:31 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: [ruby-talk:24801] Re: XML libraries (Re: Re: ruby and
> webservices)
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> |I was waiting for them to finish this API to begin working on it.  My only issue now is which XML library to use, 
> because its then going to be a
> requirement.
> 
>   |
>   |1) NQXML
>   |2) REXML
>   |3) XMLParser (expat)
>   |
>   |Thoughts on this?
> 
>   The request for Ruby to handle XML out of the box has been asked for
>   long time.  Once consensus (or merger) made, I'd like to include it in
>   the standard distribution.
> 
>                                                           matz.
> 
> IMHO:
> 
> I was very excited and enthusiastic about Ruby+XML, but now I'm disappointed and frustrated.
> (I'll rant a little(please don't take it personally; it's about technology, not people), but below, I'll offer visions and
> solutions)
> 

<snip />