Re: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

Martin v. Löwis wrote: As for PEP 4: I don't know whether it needs to be listed there. It appears that the PEP is largely unmaintained (I, personally, do not really maintain it). So one option would be to just stop using PEP 4 for recording deprecations, since we now have the warnings module. If we

RE: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

> As far as I can tell, there are no CSS or XML 1.1 parsers for > Python, period. This belongs on c.l.p, I suppose, but the first page of google results includes: =Tony.Meyer ___

Re: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

> Statements like this are pretty common, but there's no evidence (that I've > ever seen pointed to) that someone has *measured* how many people want > modules for X. I almost didn't send this in, because I figured someone would have to argue with it. > If there are that many people that want (e.

RE: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

>> * The average quality of the library improves as we take >> out junk (the tzparse module for example) and put in high >> quality modules like logging, csv, decimal, etc. > > Yes and no. The added modules have to be relevant to what > users want to do. While (relatively) minor stuff like csv

Re: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

> * The average quality of the library improves as we take out junk (the > tzparse module for example) and put in high quality modules like > logging, csv, decimal, etc. Yes and no. The added modules have to be relevant to what users want to do. While (relatively) minor stuff like csv and decima

Re: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 18:54 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > I think it would be better to *remove* the xmllib documentation. > Existing code which needs the module will continue to work even > without documentation, and new code is unlikely to be written for > a module that has no documentation,

RE: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 07:44, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > We are trying to remove clutter, not keep it in perpetuity. Leaving the > docs means continuing to have to test it, field bug reports, be aware of > its existence, etc. > > Do not keep this on a respirator. Let it die in peace. Old docume

RE: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

> > > I think it would be better to *remove* the xmllib documentation. > > > Existing code which needs the module will continue to work even > > > without documentation, and new code is unlikely to be written for > > > a module that has no documentation, and where importing the module > > > gives a

Re: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

Carlos Ribeiro wrote: On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 12:12:48 +, Michael Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1, at least for *hiding* the documentation of xmllib + similar modules. I'm not sure wholesale removal is really a good idea. 1) Move the deprecated documentation into a separate book. 2) Don't

Re: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 12:12:48 +, Michael Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Anthony Baxter wrote: > >> The library docs for, e.g. xmllib already say deprecated at the top - maybe > >> it should be larger? > > > > I think it would be better to

Re: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

"Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anthony Baxter wrote: >> The library docs for, e.g. xmllib already say deprecated at the top - maybe >> it should be larger? > > I think it would be better to *remove* the xmllib documentation. > Existing code which needs the module will continue to

Re: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

Martin v. Löwis wrote: Anthony Baxter wrote: The library docs for, e.g. xmllib already say deprecated at the top - maybe it should be larger? I think it would be better to *remove* the xmllib documentation. Existing code which needs the module will continue to work even without documentation, and

Re: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 18:49, Brett C. wrote: > And as for the mention of dropping PEP 4, I agree with the running consensus > that it isn't needed thanks to the warning module. Do we need to have a more > formal vote to drop PEP 4, or should one the PEP maintainers just delete it? There's real

Re: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

Martin v. Löwis wrote: Anthony Baxter wrote: The library docs for, e.g. xmllib already say deprecated at the top - maybe it should be larger? I think it would be better to *remove* the xmllib documentation. Existing code which needs the module will continue to work even without documentation, and

Re: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

Anthony Baxter wrote: The library docs for, e.g. xmllib already say deprecated at the top - maybe it should be larger? I think it would be better to *remove* the xmllib documentation. Existing code which needs the module will continue to work even without documentation, and new code is unlikely to

Re: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 05:40:16 -0500, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Deprecated modules just get moved to the lib-old directory. If > someone has ancient code relying on the module, it is a somewhat trivial > maintenance step to add lib-old to their PYTHONPATH. IOW, I fail to see >

RE: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 05:40, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > * The number one current python complaint is the state of the standard > library: http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3441931 . > Some of this may just be the fruits of AMK's highly publicized journal > entry; however, I think t

Re: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 03:36, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > I mostly agree with Fredrik. What good does removal of xmllib do? > It's not that it is causing any maintenance burden, so we could just > leave it in. Whether this means that we keep xmllib until P3k, I > don't know. > > As for PEP 4: I don

Re: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

On Sunday 05 December 2004 21:40, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > * The number one current python complaint is the state of the standard > library: http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3441931 . > Some of this may just be the fruits of AMK's highly publicized journal > entry; however, I thi

Re: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

Raymond Hettinger wrote: * Deprecated modules just get moved to the lib-old directory. If someone has ancient code relying on the module, it is a somewhat trivial maintenance step to add lib-old to their PYTHONPATH. IOW, I fail to see the harm. I have never considered this as an official policy.

RE: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

> > It seems somewhat silly to keep an obsolete, supplanted module that > > doesn’t full support XML 1.0. > > I mostly agree with Fredrik. What good does removal of xmllib do? A few thoughts: * Deprecated modules just get moved to the lib-old directory. If someone has ancient code relying on t

RE: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

> As for PEP 4: I don't know whether it needs to be listed there. It > appears that the PEP is largely unmaintained (I, personally, do not > really maintain it). So one option would be to just stop using PEP 4 > for recording deprecations, since we now have the warnings module. +1 Raymond

Re: [Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

Raymond Hettinger wrote: Hmph. The xmllib module has been deprecated since Py2.0 but is not listed in PEP 4. Question: Do we have to keep it for another two years because of that omission? It seems somewhat silly to keep an obsolete, supplanted module that doesn’t full support XML 1.0. I mostly a

[Python-Dev] Deprecated xmllib module

Hmph. The xmllib module has been deprecated since Py2.0 but is not listed in PEP 4. Question: Do we have to keep it for another two years because of that omission? It seems somewhat silly to keep an obsolete, supplanted module that doesn’t full support XML 1.0. Raymond __