On 2004.07.02, Greg Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We use nsxml in our production code at BNA. [...] We don't care if you > want to declare nsxml dead.
On 2004.07.06, Matthew Krenzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yea, we are using nsxml in a production environment here, but feel > free to close the tickets and declare it obsolete anyway. [...] On 2004.07.06, Daniel P. Stasinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Same here. It's used on half a dozen servers here. Perhaps some day > I'll migrate it to tDom but I'm in no hurry. I personally don't mind continuing to support nsxml provided there are no fundamental reasons why it cannot be supported in the future due to design changes in libxml or AOLserver. Are the three open bugs at SourceForge the only known issues with nsxml, currently? In other words: the version of nsxml you are all using in production, is it just what's currently in CVS plus the fixes for the three open bugs? I'd be happy to fix any bugs for nsxml filed in SourceForge. I'll start working on the three currently open bugs, but if any of you know of additional bugs that you have fixed in your private copies of nsxml, please open them at SourceForge as well. Thanks! In Longer-term plans, I'd like to standardize around one or the other (i.e., nsxml vs. tDOM) and as tDOM is also used by the stand-alone Tcl audience, I'm hoping it will receive more support and thorough testing. Choosing tDOM as the standard for AOLserver should be a win, in favor of continuing to support nsxml. -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/ "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70) -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
