> and to answer specifically the question;
> 'What would you be able to do with it that you couldn't do if it were
> a module ?'
> there is no difference in usage.

Perhaps a pro XML-er can weigh in. Unlike many others on this list, I
use XML for almost everything. I think the point is what you're
saying here above, Jim. The benefits you describe of a native XML data type
boil down to a) encouraging a common approach to processing, and b)
not having to import modules. The point of DOM and other models is to
accomplish 'a' without regard to language, and 'b' is going to be a
benefit (not a drawback) to most users who value options.

"Encouraging a common approach" is not an easy or necessarily smart
thing in the XML space. I expect that XQuery is going to become more
popular over the next 5 years, and that similar domain-specific
languages will supplant DOM to a large extent. There's a reason that
entire grammars like XPath and XQuery exist to do one thing and one
thing alone. Let these languages do what they do well, and let Perl
use them via modules (I'm working on an XQilla module now). A native
XML type would only serve to antiquate Perl 6 long before it's time
(!), and is therefore a ... nonstarter.

Reply via email to