Guido wrote: >I remember our group discussion about this. What's currently >implemented is what we decided there, based upon (Fred's >representation of) what the XML-sig wanted. So you don't like this >either, right? Hey - not so. I saw the original problem, asked about it, was told it would be discussed, heard nothing of the results of the disccussion, saw that I still had the same problem close to the release of 2.0b1, thought maybe it had slipped through the cracks, and asked again in an effort to help. I apologise if it came across in any other way. >I believe there are two conflicting desires here: (1) the standard XML >package by the core should be named simply "xml"; (2) you want the old >XML-sig code (which lives in a package named "xml" but installed in >site-packages) to override the core xml package. I'm happy with (1) being the standard XML package - I thought from Fred's original post that there might be some way of having both work together. >I don't think that's possible -- at least not without a hack that's >too ugly to accept. Glad to have this clarified. >You might be able to get the old XML-sig code to override the core xml >package by creating a symlink named _xmlplus to it in site-packages >though. Thanks for the suggestion - I'll try it. Since my code has to run on Windows as well, probably the best thing I can do is bundle up the xml-sig stuff in my distribution, call it something else, and get around it all that way. Mark
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