On one hand I agree that ET should be emphasized since it's the better
API with a much faster implementation. But I also understand Martin's
point of view that minidom has its place, so IMHO some sort of
compromise should be reached. Perhaps we can recommend using ET for
those not
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 10:02, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Hi everyone,
I think Py3.3 would be a good milestone for cleaning up the stdlib support
for XML. Note upfront: you may or may not know me as the maintainer of lxml,
the de-facto non-stdlib standard Python XML tool. This
On Dec 9, 2011 3:04 AM, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Hi everyone,
I think Py3.3 would be a good milestone for cleaning up the stdlib
support for XML. Note upfront: you may or may not know me as the maintainer
of lxml, the de-facto non-stdlib standard Python XML tool. This (lengthy)
What should change?
a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right tool right
from the start. Instead of using the totally misleading wording that it uses
now, it should be honest about the performance characteristics of MiniDOM
and should actively suggest that those who
On 2/6/2012 8:01 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
On one hand I agree that ET should be emphasized since it's the better
API with a much faster implementation. But I also understand Martin's
point of view that minidom has its place, so IMHO some sort of
compromise should be reached. Perhaps we can
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
If these changes are considered acceptable, I'll copy the above over to the
documentation bug I opened at
http://bugs.python.org/issue11379
Can these doc changes go into both 2.7 and 3.3? Given that there is no
Stefan Behnel, 14.12.2011 20:41:
It's clear from the
discussion that there are still users and that new code is still being
written that uses MiniDOM. However, I would argue that this cannot possibly
be performance critical code and that it only deals with somewhat small
documents. I say that
Le 16/12/2011 07:53, Stefan Behnel a écrit :
Additionally, the documentation on the xml.sax page would benefit from
the following paragraph:
[[Note: The xml.sax package provides an implementation of the SAX
interface whose API is similar to that in other programming languages.
Users who
Stefan Behnel, 09.12.2011 09:02:
I think Py3.3 would be a good milestone for cleaning up the stdlib support
for XML.
[...]
I still think it is, so let me sum up the current discussion here.
What should change?
a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right tool
right
Am 12.12.2011 10:04, schrieb Stefan Behnel:
Martin v. Löwis, 11.12.2011 23:39:
I can't recall anyone working on any substantial improvements during the
last six years or so, and the reason for that seems obvious to me.
What do you think is the reason? It's not at all obvious to me.
Just to
Just look through the xml-sig page, basically all requests regarding
PyXML during the last five years deal with problems in installing it,
i.e. *before* even starting to use it. So you can't use this to claim
that people really *are* still using it.
I'm not so sure. In many of these cases, it
Martin v. Löwis, 14.12.2011 19:14:
Am 12.12.2011 10:04, schrieb Stefan Behnel:
Martin v. Löwis, 11.12.2011 23:39:
I can't recall anyone working on any substantial improvements during the
last six years or so, and the reason for that seems obvious to me.
What do you think is the reason? It's
On 2011-12-14, at 20:41 , Stefan Behnel wrote:
I meant: lack of interest in improving them. It's clear from the discussion
that there are still users and that new code is still being written that uses
MiniDOM. However, I would argue that this cannot possibly be performance
critical code and
Xavier Morel, 14.12.2011 20:54:
On 2011-12-14, at 20:41 , Stefan Behnel wrote:
I meant: lack of interest in improving them. It's clear from the
discussion that there are still users and that new code is still being
written that uses MiniDOM. However, I would argue that this cannot
possibly be
Am 14.12.2011 20:41, schrieb Stefan Behnel:
Martin v. Löwis, 14.12.2011 19:14:
Am 12.12.2011 10:04, schrieb Stefan Behnel:
Martin v. Löwis, 11.12.2011 23:39:
I can't recall anyone working on any substantial improvements
during the
last six years or so, and the reason for that seems obvious
Martin v. Löwis, 14.12.2011 22:20:
Am 14.12.2011 20:41, schrieb Stefan Behnel:
Martin v. Löwis, 14.12.2011 19:14:
Am 12.12.2011 10:04, schrieb Stefan Behnel:
Martin v. Löwis, 11.12.2011 23:39:
I can't recall anyone working on any substantial improvements
during the
last six years or so, and
Martin v. Löwis, 11.12.2011 23:39:
I can't recall anyone working on any substantial improvements during the
last six years or so, and the reason for that seems obvious to me.
What do you think is the reason? It's not at all obvious to me.
Just to repeat myself for the third time here: lack
Martin v. Löwis, 11.12.2011 23:03:
Am 09.12.2011 10:09, schrieb Xavier Morel:
On 2011-12-09, at 09:41 , Martin v. Löwis wrote:
a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right
tool right from the start. Instead of using the totally
misleading wording that it uses now, it
Stefan Behnel, 12.12.2011 10:59:
Just look through the xml-sig page
Hmm, I meant xml-sig mailing list archive here ...
Stefan
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
Am 09.12.2011 10:09, schrieb Xavier Morel:
On 2011-12-09, at 09:41 , Martin v. Löwis wrote:
a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right
tool right from the start. Instead of using the totally
misleading wording that it uses now, it should be honest about
the performance
Am 09.12.2011 16:09, schrieb Dirkjan Ochtman:
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 09:02, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right tool right
from the start.
b) cElementTree should finally loose it's special status as a separate
library and
I can't recall anyone working on any substantial improvements during the
last six years or so, and the reason for that seems obvious to me.
What do you think is the reason? It's not at all obvious to me.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
On 2011-12-11, at 23:03 , Martin v. Löwis wrote:
People are still using PyXML, despite it's not being maintained anymore.
Telling them to replace 4DOM with minidom is much more appropriate than
telling them to rewrite in ET.
From my understanding, Stefan's suggestion is mostly aimed at new
Martin,
You seem heavily invested in minidom.
In the near future I will need to parse and rewrite parts of an xml file
created by a third-party program (PrintShopMail, for the curious).
It contains both binary and textual data.
Would you recommend minidom for this purpose? What other
On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 19:39 +0100, Xavier Morel wrote:
On 2011-12-09, at 19:15 , Bill Janssen wrote:
I use ElementTree for parsing valid XML, but minidom for producing it.
Could you expand on your reasons to use minidom for producing XML?
To throw my 2c in here:
I personally normally use
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Bill Janssen, 09.12.2011 19:15:
I think another thing that might go into refreshing the batteries is a
feature comparison of BeautifulSoup and HTML5lib against the stdlib
competition, to see what needs to be added/revised. Having to switch to
an
On Dec 10, 2011, at 2:38 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Note, however, that html5lib is likely way too big to add it to the stdlib,
and that BeautifulSoup lacks a parser for non-conforming HTML in Python 3,
which would be the target release series for better HTML support. So,
whatever library or
On 12/10/2011 4:32 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
On Dec 10, 2011, at 2:38 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Note, however, that html5lib is likely way too big to add it to the
stdlib, and that BeautifulSoup lacks a parser for non-conforming HTML
in Python 3, which would be the target release series for
On Dec 10, 2011, at 6:30 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
A little data: the HTML5lib project lives at
https://code.google.com/p/html5lib/
It has 4 owners and 22 other committers.
The most recent release, html5lib 0.90 for Python, is nearly 2 years old.
Since there is a separate Python3
On 12/10/2011 9:25 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
On Dec 10, 2011, at 6:30 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
A little data: the HTML5lib project lives at
https://code.google.com/p/html5lib/
It has 4 owners and 22 other committers.
If there really are 4 'owners' rather than 4 people with admin access to
a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right tool
right from the start. Instead of using the totally misleading wording
that it uses now, it should be honest about the performance
characteristics of MiniDOM and should actively suggest that those who
don't know what to
Martin v. Löwis, 09.12.2011 09:41:
a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right tool
right from the start. Instead of using the totally misleading wording
that it uses now, it should be honest about the performance
characteristics of MiniDOM and should actively suggest that
On 2011-12-09, at 09:41 , Martin v. Löwis wrote:
a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right tool
right from the start. Instead of using the totally misleading wording
that it uses now, it should be honest about the performance
characteristics of MiniDOM and should
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right tool
right from the start. Instead of using the totally misleading wording
that it uses now, it should be honest about the performance
characteristics of
Mostly uninformed +1 to Stefan's suggestions from me.
Regards
Antoine.
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:02:35 +0100
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Hi everyone,
I think Py3.3 would be a good milestone for cleaning up the stdlib support
for XML. Note upfront: you may or may not know me
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 09:02, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right tool right
from the start.
b) cElementTree should finally loose it's special status as a separate
library and disappear as an accelerator module behind
+1
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl wrote:
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 09:02, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right tool right
from the start.
b) cElementTree should finally loose it's special
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:02:35 +0100
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right
tool right from the start.
b) cElementTree should finally loose it's special status as a
separate library and disappear as an accelerator module behind
Mike Meyer m...@mired.org wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:02:35 +0100
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right
tool right from the start.
b) cElementTree should finally loose it's special status as a
separate library and
On 9 December 2011 18:15, Bill Janssen jans...@parc.com wrote:
I use ElementTree for parsing valid XML, but minidom for producing it.
I think another thing that might go into refreshing the batteries is a
feature comparison of BeautifulSoup and HTML5lib against the stdlib
competition, to see
On 2011-12-09, at 19:15 , Bill Janssen wrote:
I use ElementTree for parsing valid XML, but minidom for producing it.
Could you expand on your reasons to use minidom for producing XML?
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Xavier Morel python-...@masklinn.net wrote:
On 2011-12-09, at 19:15 , Bill Janssen wrote:
I use ElementTree for parsing valid XML, but minidom for producing it.
Could you expand on your reasons to use minidom for producing XML?
Inertia, I guess. I tried that first, and it seems to work.
I
I second this. The doco is very bad.
On Dec 10, 2011 6:34 AM, Bill Janssen jans...@parc.com wrote:
Xavier Morel python-...@masklinn.net wrote:
On 2011-12-09, at 19:15 , Bill Janssen wrote:
I use ElementTree for parsing valid XML, but minidom for producing it.
Could you expand on your
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 00:43, Matt Joiner anacro...@gmail.com wrote:
I second this. The doco is very bad.
It would be constructive to open issues for specific problems in the
documentation. I'm sure this won't be hard to fix. Documentation should not
be the roadblock for using a library.
Eli
Bill Janssen, 09.12.2011 19:15:
I think another thing that might go into refreshing the batteries is a
feature comparison of BeautifulSoup and HTML5lib against the stdlib
competition, to see what needs to be added/revised. Having to switch to
an outside package for parsing possibly invalid HTML
45 matches
Mail list logo
