>
> 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.

I haven't been counting, but the sense I get is many people on this list think a Ruby-way is personally/aesthetically  better than
DOM or SAX, though some people have a use for DOM and SAX.

What I don't see is any clear explanation why some people view this as an either/or choice.

<snip />

> DOM: quirky.

So is XML 1.0. But they are W3C TRs.

> SAX: IIRC, its' creator(s) say, there's no standard. It's defined
> through the Java implementation. Ruby is different to Java.

I suspect there's a formal API def somewhere (would have to look).  XML is not a standard, it's the recommendation of a vendor
consortia.  SAX is essentially just as "standard", but derived from discussions on the xml-dev list.

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

True, but it doesn't explain why the its presence means excluding DOM and/or SAX.


James

>
> Tobi