[Note that I've simplified the headers, but cross-posted to python-dev
and xml-sig. *Please* follow up to xml-sig!]
Paul Prescod writes:
> Why aren't we ready to dicuss it?
I think the XML crew should discuss these things first. PyXML has
generally been treated as a catch all for various neat XML stuff, but
looking at it as a careful extension of the core XML support means we
need to think about it that way, including the line between what's in
the core and what isn't.
I think it's very valuable to listen to the experts on this topic
(which I think is predominantly you, the FourThought crew, and Lars,
with Sean playing a secondary role since he's usually too busy to
participate in the discussions). I'd like to see this discussed in
the SIG with an eye to creating two non-experimental packages:
1. XML support for the Python standard library, and
2. an XML extension package that adds support for more
recommendations and candidate recommendations.
There should still be something like the current PyXML, which
contains all the neat stuff that doesn't fall in one of the other two
categories.
I think a PEP and further discussions in the XML-SIG are in order
before we add more material into the standard library. I'm firmly
committed to getting the "right stuff" in there, but I don't want to
rush headlong into adding things before they're ready and agreed
upon.
I'd love to see you or one of the other Python+XML leaders be editor
for a PEP on this topic.
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at beopen.com>
BeOpen PythonLabs Team Member
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