On 12/02/2018 1:51 PM, Chris wrote:
On Monday, 12 February 2018 at 12:49:30 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
On 12/02/2018 12:38 PM, Chris wrote:
On Monday, 12 February 2018 at 05:36:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
dxml 0.2.0 has now been released.

I really wasn't planning on releasing anything this quickly after announcing dxml, but when I went to start working on DOM support, it turned out to be surprisingly quick and easy to implement. So, dxml now has basic DOM support.

[...]

Will this replace `std.xml` one day?

As long as DTD support is essentially non-existent, my vote will always be no.

How hard would it be to add DTD support? One could take dxml and extend it in order to include it in Phobos. I haven't used `std.xml` for years now. It is essentially dead and unusable atm.

From what I read in the other thread, it would require a complete redesign and a major performance hit.

I don't care what J.M.D. puts in his own library. We just can't advertise to having an 'XML' library when we out right ignore a large portion of (and fairly important to real world adoption IMO) the specification for no other reason than personal opinions of the author.

Now if you want a subset as the 'default' but have full support including DTD as an opt-in with the only difference is how you initialize the parser, I'd be happy and so will our end users in the future.

Reply via email to