--- Zach Dennis <zdennis / mktec.com> wrote:
> James,
> 
> Are the people on this thread suffering from a case
> of programmatic idealism, underuse or misuse of
> rexml
> or is rexml lacking some of the things mentioned on
> this thread?
> 
.....<<

Hi All,

This is my final comment here on rexml. Thanks for
your interesting comments.

I'd probably fall into the 'programmatic idealistic'
side. I wont boast more than a month's or so
experience with Ruby so i probably should not have
started the thread. 

I like REXML a lot, it feels as close to the language
as any xml api i've used.(i've used xml a lot since
2000 - and when i started i had my reservations) Then
i ran accross e4x and thot, the fellas here would be
interested and i believe ruby has a better chance of
implementing it elegantly. Period. I'm really not
experienced, educated enough to comment persuasively
on the implementation, or with any real insight, as
you've so adroitly pointed out. I should have prefaced
my original comment with that, looking back.

things i know.
1) xml is increasingly becoming fundamental (might be
thot of as a common type in my mind).
2) it is very important for my development - from the
design(requirements) to the implementation(config
files - cached state). And many others(cocoon,xsp...)
3) REXML is the best xml API i've found
4) REXML works just fine as it is
5) My comments were not meant to be derisive,
condesending or contentious. 

things i think i know
1) e4x wont be the only language that attempts to fold

xml into it natively. It is in the evolutionary path
of any general purpose language, imo
2) tho this thread has been futile (mostly my own
doing), there are knowledgable folks considering the
implementation very seriously
3) when it is fluidly embedded in the language you
will wonder what you did without it
4) Ruby and REXML will be better at that time

bye,paul vudmaska



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com