I'm not so surprised that Fredrik chose to bypass XML-SIG. There doesn't seem to be a lot of decision power there -- in fact it feels a bit dead, with a weird mix of too-high-level discussions that don't go anywhere, plus basic beginner's Q+A.
Also, it would seem that /F's ElementTree doesn't need much vetting -- it seems well established and well-known in the XML-SIG (it was listed in all the overviews of APIs). Finally, compared offerings based on e.g. 4thought (sp.?), ElementTree feels much more practical and hence, might I say it, "pythonic". --Guido On 12/12/05, Mike Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Catching up on some python-dev email, I was surprised to see that things seem > to be barrelling ahead with the adding of ElementTree to Python core without > any discussion on XML-SIG. Sidestepping XML-SIG and the proving grounds of > PyXML in order to satsify the demand for a Pythonic databinding+API for XML in > stdlib seems to be a bit of a raised middle finger to those folks who have > worked hard on competing or differently-scoped APIs, each of which deserves a > bit more peer review than just a single nomination on python-dev, which seems > to be all it took to obtain a blessing for ElementTree. I have nothing against > ElementTree, and would like to see more XML processing options in core, but it > seems to me like the XML-SIG is being deliberately left out of this process. > > Just last month, Guido submitted to XML-SIG a Pythonic XML API that he had > been tinkering with.[1] I don't think anyone was really bold enough to tell > him what they really thought of it (other than that it is a lot like XIST), > but it was admirable that he put it up for peer review rather than just > dropping it into stdlib. Perhaps more importantly, it prompted some discussion > that more or less acknowledged that these kinds of APIs do seem to be the > future of XML in Python, and that we should be thinking about bringing some of > them into PyXML and, ultimately, stdlib. But the problem of how to choose from > the many options also became immediately apparent.[2] The discussion stalled, > but I think it should start up again, in the proper forum, rather than letting > the first-mentioned API supplant the dozen+ alternatives that could also be > considered as candidates.[3] > > Sorry to be a sourpuss. > > Mike > -- > > [1] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/xml-sig/2005-November/011248.html > (Guido's very civil proposal and request for peer review) > [2] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/xml-sig/2005-November/011252.html (this > also summarizes the categories of software/approaches that people are > taking to the general problem of working with XML Pythonically) > [3] http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/10/13/py-xml.html (and there are at least > 3 more databinding APIs that have come out since then) > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
