On Nov 28, 2007 7:50 PM, Geoffrey Broadwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not too put too strong a bias on it, but:
> XML processors are a dime a dozen.  There is no way for us to know *now*
> what the "best" XML processor(s) will be a decade from now, and Perl 6
> is intended to be a very long term language.  And frankly there are
> enough different use cases to ensure that no single XML processor could
> possibly be "best" in all circumstances anyway.  We should not canonize
> a single XML processor (now especially) by putting it in the core.

XML Parser is what I am talking about  and I would argue that XPATH is
simple and standard enough to be included as well.

> As Nicholas pointed out, it's unlikely that "vanilla" will be the Perl 6
> flavor that any vendor actually ships.  But I definitely want to be able
> to choose between strawberry and chocolate, and perhaps a new flavor of
> my own (or my company's) design.  I really do not want to always get
> "Baskin-Robbins in a blender" because everything's in core.
> The grammar engine is core.  A *particular* grammar is not.

putting it more harshly ... I expect my basic programming language to
solve my basic problems without having to resort to some layer of
abstraction in the form of a framework or external module for the
simplest scenarios.

I  have a lot of XML in front of me in all projects that I work on in
every programming context and have had so for the past 3-4 years. I am
a bit biased, but I can only see more XML for all of us.

I do not nec. agree with 'a particular grammer is not' part of the
core ... if that grammar is so common to every problem (like regex is)
then why not include it?

I am going on now.... but you get the point.

cheers, Jim Fuller

Reply via email to