Whoops, forgot the link. [1]: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/xml-types
On Feb 16, 2014, at 1:02 AM, Jack Henahan <[email protected]> wrote: > That’s a really interesting idea, Gabriel. I’m building the parser with > `xml-types`[1] in mind (since it seems to cover the spec pretty completely), > but if there’s a way I could approach it (even devising a new type model) > that would make it fit better with that plan then I’d be thrilled to do it > another way. The idea mostly came about because I wanted to use `pipes` for > another project without having to pull in another library just for a hand > rolled parser (and whatever assumptions the designer imposed on it). In > particular, I noticed the lack of any extant `attoparsec` parser for XML, so > I thought that’d be a good first step. > > Let me know your thoughts and I’ll put some time into it this week. The lens > and `FreeT` stuff sounds very compelling, and getting a widely usable XML > parser in the bargain can’t hurt. > > On Feb 15, 2014, at 4:24 AM, Gabriel Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I was taking a look at this the other day and I noticed that we can actually >> use the `FreeT` idioms from `pipes-group` to provide a more strongly typed >> interface to the XML document that preserves its nested structure. >> >> Right now, all the current XML libraries rely on generating a stream of >> events which try to flatten the document into a linear stream. The issue >> with this is that such a stream does not enforce the correct nesting in the >> types and doesn't provide any good tools for manipulating groups. With >> something like `pipes-group` we could actually represent the XML as an >> actual nested data type that still streams all the data. As a bonus, we >> could even use lenses to zoom in on tags and their children, too. >> >> I know that's probably more than what Jack had in mind, but I can contribute >> the `FreeT` and lenses stuff myself if necessary. >> >> On 02/14/2014 01:08 PM, Jack Henahan wrote: >>> I’m currently working on an attoparsec XML parser with the specific goal of >>> using it with pipes-attoparsec and hopefully turning it into a pipes-xml >>> kind of package. It’s not anywhere near release ready, but I’ll try to put >>> more serious effort into it since there’s more interest. >>> >>> But oh, god, XML is a nightmare. >>> >>> On Feb 6, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Rodlogic <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I have been using pipes-http for the past few days and I am now at a point >>>> where I need to parse xml responses. I don't need validations and I don't >>>> need to parse the XML into a DOM but instead would like to parse it >>>> directly into my own data structures (a la what existing JSON parsers are >>>> doing in Haskell). And of course, sane dependencies is also important. >>>> >>>> Is there an existing lightweight xml parsing package that I could use with >>>> pipes? If not, does it make sense to build one using pipes-parse? >>>> >>>> I am somewhat new to Haskell, so any pointers are well appreciated. >>>> >>>> thanks! >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>> "Haskell Pipes" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>> email to [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> >> >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
