>> I suspect not. It's special purpose is to parse or generate XML-RPC,
>> so you know ahead of time that the end result is the only thing you
>> need.
Paul> One reason to use a full XML parser is you get Unicode cheaply. I
Paul> don't see Unicode as a feature that you add in a weekend at the
Paul> end...
XML-RPC's relationship to Unicode is ill-defined. The spec that Dave Winer
wrote requires all data to be US-ASCII, so XML-RPC isn't really
XML-compliant. (You'll have to take up issues of standards compliance with
Dave.)
Still, Unicode or not, the notion that XML-RPC is a data serialization
mechanism instead of a compound data markup language means you don't need to
provide hooks for processing each element, so full-blown XML parsers tend to
be overkill as py-xmlrpc demonstrates. No matter how hard Shilad finds it
to add Unicode support to his package, it's still likely to be miles ahead
of other XML parsers.
Skip
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