James Britt (rubydev) wrote:


> I agree that SAX is more important than DOM.  But to dismiss the DOM API resupposes the intended audience of XML in Ruby.  If we
> want to primarily target hackers who are glad to use whatever API  a language provides (because, say, they'll just write their own
> parser on top of that anyway), then the DOM is non-critical.  If we want to lure XML-ites over to Ruby, with the idea that not only
> can they reuse their XML experience, but get other treats aong the way, then DOM should be considered.


AFAICS: Almost everybody expessed that they would like a RubyWay API, 
that integrates well with Ruby, over a DOM API. Many think SAX and DOM 
would be a good idea as a later addition.
Some think both are not needed, and a RubyWay streaming parser+API would 
be nicer.

At first, I believed DOM and SAX are most important, because they are 
some kind of standard (one a rec, one a defacto standard in Java), and 
that this would equate some kind of PoLS.
Through discussion on this list, I came to the insight that RubyWay 
tree- and streaming packages are the only things I would like to see in 
the stdlib.
DOM: quirky.
SAX: IIRC, its' creator(s) say, there's no standard. It's defined 
through the Java implementation. Ruby is different to Java.

A RubyWay equivalent for both concepts sure would offer many advantages. 
(as many report from practical experience)

Tobi

-- 
Tobias Reif
http://www.pinkjuice.com/myDigitalProfile.xhtml

go_to('www.ruby-lang.org').get(ruby).play.create.have_fun
http://www.pinkjuice.com/ruby/