Hello --

On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Robert Feldt wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Nat Pryce wrote:
>
> > So, my opinion is that the standard library should include a streaming
> > parser and a Rubyesque document API that includes XPath and XSLT, but that a
> > DOM API should be distributed separately from the standard library.
> >
> IMHO, this was an important clarification. Thanks Nat.
>
> May I add that IMHO, anything that goes into the standard Ruby
> distribution should have a Rubyesque API (ie. clean, simple,
> intuitive while still powerful) since it will be part of the
> total experience called Ruby. On the flip side, I don't think there
> should be stuff in the std distribution that does not have a Rubyesque
> API simply because it has to support a standard. But of course existing
> standards influences what makes for "least surprise" so in the end
> there might not be that much of a difference.
>
> When you guys start discussing big and hairy DOM, SAX and whatever API's
> (ok, I'm ignorant) small little Ruby'ers like me get scared. Don't you
> forget that! ;-)
>
> Anyway, Matz is there as the final arbiter and he is on the side of the
> humans in us (even the weak once, eh?) so nothing to worry about... ;-)


Now, now -- the "S" in SAX stands for Simple :-)  Nothing inhuman
about it.


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav