Dear LXML People!
I learned that some members of the list were annoyed by my posts. My aim
was never to disrespect any person nor their work for lxml. I you feel
disrespected I am truely sorry for that.
But I am still sure that lxml.objectify is not the perfect solution.
lxml.objectify has its advantages, for instance in simplicity and
dealing with non-namespace usecases. And I think we can agree that there
is no perfection in all usecase to be gained. lxml.o has its usecases
and lxml.o2 will have its usecases. In any of my posts I have pointed
out that lxml.o should not be replaced by lxml.o2, and that I opt for a
coexistence. I also pointed out that I respected your code - I not even
touched it.
If something is not perfect it is limited in a way. To motivate my work
I find it quite legitimate to point out the limitations of
lxml.objectify. I addressed the limitiations of lxml.o2 already in my
last post and I am sure there will be more surfacing before I have
finalized it.
And a few last words on the reception of the ML from my perspective. I
had right from the start the feeling that my ideas were not really taken
seriously. Many negative arguments like "it was so since 2006" or "it
cannot work" were brought up. Even the "but I am strongly biased" club
aka "I am one of the developer/maintainer" was waved.
Now I would like to come back onto the rational plane and do
constructive work together.
Cheers,
Volker
--
=========================================================
inqbus Scientific Computing Dr. Volker Jaenisch
Hungerbichlweg 3 +49 (8860) 9222 7 92
86977 Burggenhttps://inqbus.de
=========================================================
_______________________________________________
lxml - The Python XML Toolkit mailing list -- lxml@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to lxml-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/lxml.python.org/
Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
