On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 11:06:52PM -0500, Paul Prescod wrote: >... > We have three options: > > 1. use the relatively large 4XPath as is > > 2. use a tiny subset of XPath (analogous SQL with only simple SELECT) > that can be implemented in a couple of hundred lines of Python code > (this code is mostly done already, in a module called TinyXPath) > > 3. try to scale 4XPath back by moving its parser to SRE, and making > some of its features "options" that can be added separately (not clear > how easy this is) > > What do you think? I think this is for the XML SIG. I don't know why it is here. SIGs discuss and design, then roll up their final decisions. I haven't seen a clear consensus or decision from the XML SIG yet. You've got your TinyXPath module, but (forget who) has another module for much the same thing. There was a discussion of APIs. A discussion of how/where SRE could play into the game. IMO, these are all a bunch of points for the XML SIG, not python-dev. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4