On Monday, February 12, 2018 15:45:50 bachmeier via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > 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.
I have no interest in bikeshedding the name right now or even really arguing about Phobos inclusion (I've already said more in this thread about that than I probably should have). That can be left up to the review process, which already tends to be nasty enough that it wouldn't surprise me at all if dxml doesn't get accepted. The only reason that I have any plans to try for Phobos inclusion with dxml is because std.xml needs to be replaced. If Phobos didn't have an XML parser already, I don't expect that I'd bother, since I don't think that it's all that important that a standard library have an XML parser. I just think that it's important that it not have have a bad one. In general, I think that XML is the sort of thing that's perfectly fine as a 3rd party solution. - Jonathan M Davis