On Tuesday 13 December 2005 15:02, Martin v. Löwis wrote: > That's not true. The current xml package *is* the consensus of > xml-sig. It pretty much was at the time, at any rate. It's not clear to me that the xml package shipped in 2.4 and several preceeding versions of Python would pass muster in the current XML-SIG. There's been a lot of evolution in the Python APIs for XML since then, and a lot of really interesting things have been tried with varying degrees of acceptance. Unless the XML-SIG wants to figure it out all over again, adding xml.etree to the standard library is probably the best near-term improvement that can be made. Speaking just for myself, I think this is fine, though I agree with Jim that an easier-to-use package management system would go a long way to avoid the issues related to whether something is in the standard library. Now, just what it means for a package management system to be easier to use might be harder to get us to agree on. :-) -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.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