On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:43:37 +0100, TRANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/17/06, Ross Bamford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:35:59 +0100, Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> On the other hand, I'm not necessarily adverse to having some kind
>> >> of 'easy
On 4/17/06, Ross Bamford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:35:59 +0100, Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >> On the other hand, I'm not necessarily adverse to having some kind
> >> of 'easy' API built on top of the core library, if there was enough
> >> to it, and i
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:35:59 +0100, Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> On the other hand, I'm not necessarily adverse to having some kind
>> of 'easy' API built on top of the core library, if there was enough
>> to it, and it was sufficiently 'easy', but then again that's
>> probably
> possible (including all the things we expect to have as rubyists,
> like the above) then there won't be any unexpected gotchas that
> could bite in code that would otherwise be nice and quick.
>
> On the other hand, I'm not necessarily adverse to having some kind
> of 'easy' API built on top of
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:23:17 +0100, zdennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'll admit at this point that I've not deeply studied the additions Mark
>> made in the ruby code, so I may well 180 on this 'not including ruby
>> code'
>> in the near future :->
>
> The ruby stuff I am thinking of are ju
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ross Bamford wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:24:41 +0100, zdennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>A while back you posted:
>>
>> http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/libxml-devel/attachments/20051230/778cd254/libxml-x.obj
>>
>>And I know Mark VanHolst
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:24:41 +0100, zdennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A while back you posted:
>
> http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/libxml-devel/attachments/20051230/778cd254/libxml-x.obj
>
> And I know Mark VanHolstyn posted some pure-ruby stuff with his patches
> also. Will this ruby-add
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ross Bamford wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:02:24 +0100, zdennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Do you like the idea of doing callbacks on specific node types? This
>>should be possible with the SAXParser I would assume..but
>>maybe I am wrong?
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:02:24 +0100, zdennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you like the idea of doing callbacks on specific node types? This
> should be possible with the SAXParser I would assume..but
> maybe I am wrong?
>
Libxml2's SAX parser doesn't (AFAIK?) support this directly, and my
f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Do you like the idea of doing callbacks on specific node types? This should be
possible with the SAXParser I would assume..but
maybe I am wrong?
Zach
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbir
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:47:19 +0100, zdennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ross Bamford wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've today committed changesets including Mark Van Holstyn's patches, an
>> additional patch I received from Tim Yamin, and a few small fixu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ross Bamford wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've today committed changesets including Mark Van Holstyn's patches, an
> additional patch I received from Tim Yamin, and a few small fixups and
> extra tests. These fix bugs in XML::Node#content, and add several
>
Hi,
I've today committed changesets including Mark Van Holstyn's patches, an
additional patch I received from Tim Yamin, and a few small fixups and
extra tests. These fix bugs in XML::Node#content, and add several
convenience methods to Node and Node::Set as previously discussed, as well
a
13 matches
Mail list logo
