On Monday, 12 February 2018 at 15:43:59 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Monday, 12 February 2018 at 14:04:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:


However, if folks as a whole think that Phobos' xml parser needs to support the DTD section to be acceptable, then dxml won't replace std.xml, because dxml is not going to implement DTD support. DTD support fundamentally does not fit in with dxml's design.

Can't you simply give it a name other than std.xml that indicates it doesn't do everything related to xml? It doesn't make sense to not put it into Phobos because of the name, and that should be an easy problem to solve.

Hit send too fast. std.xml.base would be reasonable.
          • Re:... Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
            • ... rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d-announce
          • Re:... H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce
          • Re:... rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d-announce
          • Re:... Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via Digitalmars-d-announce
          • Re:... Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-announce
      • Re: dxml 0.... Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
      • Re: dxml 0.... bachmeier via Digitalmars-d-announce
        • Re: dxm... bachmeier via Digitalmars-d-announce
          • Re:... Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce
  • Re: dxml 0.2.0 relea... Johannes Loher via Digitalmars-d-announce
  • Re: dxml 0.2.0 relea... Jesse Phillips via Digitalmars-d-announce

Reply via email to