Asp Forum - Re: xml in Ruby

paul vudmaska

10/2/2003 6:52:00 PM

>>------------

"Chris Morris" <chrismo@clabs.org>?
The point of contention seems to be whether or not
this is included in
the core language vs. a library, right? How does the
Ruby community as
a
whole benefit from core inclusion? What's not
satisfying to you about
this solution being contained in a library?
<<------------

My appologies, i guess i was contentious but did not
mean to be.

My point is that that ruby might benefit from an xml
type, it need not be in the core if i were
burdensome/overkill/redundant- but use it much as i
would with rexml just snuggled up to ruby a little
more. So maybe we are not getting much. I hope you
guys dont think that i dont like rexml, its awesome. I
was thinking more of a promotion.

basically, i saw some other language implementing what
i think is a cool feature and let you know.

pv

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping...

2 Answers

Chris Morris

10/2/2003 7:05:00 PM

paul vudmaska wrote:

>>>------------
>>>
>>>
>
>"Chris Morris" <chrismo@clabs.org>
>The point of contention seems to be whether or not
>this is included in
>the core language vs. a library, right? How does the
>Ruby community as
>a
>whole benefit from core inclusion? What's not
>satisfying to you about
>this solution being contained in a library?
><<------------
>
>My appologies, i guess i was contentious but did not
>mean to be.
>

Sorry, poor word choice on my part, I didn't intend for my comment or
questions to be harsh or negative. I just wanted to point out what I saw
as the key point and to try to get to the meat of it.

>My point is that that ruby might benefit from an xml
>type, it need not be in the core if i were
>burdensome/overkill/redundant- but use it much as i
>would with rexml just snuggled up to ruby a little
>more. So maybe we are not getting much. I hope you
>guys dont think that i dont like rexml, its awesome. I
>was thinking more of a promotion.
>
I understood your desire to have something like REXML become more
inclusive, I just wasn't hearing a clear argument as to the benefit of
having something like REXML be native rather than one require statement
away. I think we're caught up now, though. Thx!

--

Chris
http://clabs....

James Britt

10/2/2003 9:25:00 PM

paul vudmaska wrote:

>
> My point is that that ruby might benefit from an xml
> type,

It already does: String.

Do you mean special type that defines a (presumably W3C) XML DOM,
*other* than a REXML Document?

See http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby...

James Britt

comp.lang.ruby

Re: xml in Ruby

paul vudmaska

Chris Morris

James Britt

x Login to ForumsZone