On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 07:26:28PM +0000, nkm1 via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Monday, 12 February 2018 at 16:50:16 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > Folks are free to decide to support dxml for inclusion when the time > > comes and free to vote it as unacceptable. Personally, I think that > > dxml's approach is ideal for XML that doesn't use entity references, > > and I'd much rather use that kind of parser regardless of whether > > it's in the standard library or not. I think that the D community > > would be far better off with std.xml being replaced by dxml, but > > whatever happens happens.
+1. I vote for adding dxml to Phobos. [...] > I'm using dxml now, and it's a very good library. So I thought "it > should be in Phobos instead of std.xml" and searched the newsgroup. > Sorry for necroposting. Anyway, what I wanted to say is just take an > example from Perl and call it std.xml.simple. Then people would know > what to expect from it and would use it (because everyone likes > simple). That would also leave a way to include std.xml.full (or some > such) at some indefinite point in the future. Which is, in practice, > probably never - and that's fine, because who needs DTD? screw it... [...] That's a good idea, actually. That will stop people who expect full DTD support from complaining that it's not supported by the standard library. I vote for adding dxml to Phobos as std.xml.simple. We can either leave std.xml as-is, or deprecate it and work on std.xml.full (or std.xml.complex, or whatever). The current state of std.xml gives a poor impression to anyone coming to D the first time and wanting to work with XML, and having std.xml.simple would be a big plus. T -- This is not a sentence.