Philip McGrath wrote on 2/1/19 5:14 PM:
I will say an advantage of the xexpr code is that it's written in
(reasonably) modern Racket rather than portable Scheme, which I've
found somewhat easier to understand when I've wanted to read the
sources, though the sxml code is extensively commented.
I've written a fair amount of XML processing code in Racket (sometimes one
has to work with external standards and tools), and I thought I'd jump in
to say that I've been content with xexpr. I don't mean that as a criticism
of sxml, though: I happened to have learned xexpr first, and I've never
On 2019/02/01 3:24, Matthew Butterick wrote:
Yes, it's true that the Racket XML library doesn't support namespaces.
Indeed - although I hacked up a solution for that for another project[1]:
http://docs.racket-lang.org/xml-ns/index.html
I agree with the sentiment regarding the rest of the XML
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:39:19PM -0500, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote:
> Is xexprs really maintained either? At any rate, not all software needs
> very active maintenance; sxml seems to be fairly stable. Maybe you
> disagree. :)
>
> At any rate, I don't think xexprs support namespaces,
Stability is narrower than maintainability, which includes the idea of "can the
software be improved to suit current needs".
For instance: I'd be willing to look into adding SXML conversion functions to
my `txexpr` package if you'd find them useful. But when I try to read Oleg's
spec for
Hi,
> [2] http://pobox.com/~oleg/ftp/Scheme/SXML.html
moved to http://okmij.org/ftp/Scheme/SXML.html
Kind regards,
Stephen
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 17:39, Christopher Lemmer Webber <
cweb...@dustycloud.org> wrote:
> Is xexprs really maintained either? At any rate, not all software needs
> very
Is xexprs really maintained either? At any rate, not all software needs
very active maintenance; sxml seems to be fairly stable. Maybe you
disagree. :)
At any rate, I don't think xexprs support namespaces, which sxml has
tooling for, which is one important thing.
Matthew Butterick writes:
> I
I (ab)use xexprs for Pollen because they're used in the Racket web server, and
because at the time, SXML seemed largely abandoned — no traffic on its mailing
list [1] and today, even Oleg's SXML page is a 404. [2]
I wouldn't try to pry SXML from anyone's fingers. But dragging around
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:56 AM Konrad Hinsen
wrote:
> I actually migrated code from SXML to xexpr in order to be able to use
> Pollen.
For me, it feels like SXML is really optimized for consuming XML and
xexpr is really optimized for producing it.
Jay
--
-=[ Jay McCarthy
Am 30.01.19 um 19:27 schrieb Christopher Lemmer Webber:
One very frustrating thing for me is the inconsistency between which
sexp xml representation is the "right" one, sxml or xexpr. Different
tools support different things, and thus don't interoperate when they
easily could have.
Sounds...
Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote on 1/30/19 3:59 PM:
Yes, the xexprs and SXML stuff is mostly very old (perhaps most of it from so
far back that Racket even had its own little Web browser),
This one? https://docs.racket-lang.org/browser/index.html
Yes, that looks like it. Regarding using it,
Neil Van Dyke writes:
> 'John Clements' via Racket Users wrote on 1/30/19 1:46 PM:
>> Fundamentally, I think that what you’re proposing is sensible … and probably
>> a lot of work that’s not currently at the top of anyone’s list. :)
>
> Yes, the xexprs and SXML stuff is mostly very old (perhaps
'John Clements' via Racket Users wrote on 1/30/19 1:46 PM:
Fundamentally, I think that what you’re proposing is sensible … and probably a
lot of work that’s not currently at the top of anyone’s list. :)
Yes, the xexprs and SXML stuff is mostly very old (perhaps most of it
from so far back
You probably already know this, but this is basically a case of parallel
evolution. The sxml tools come ultimately from Oleg Kiselyov, and I believe
he’s the one who formulated the data definition. Many people have worked with
him on this, including many people on this mailing list. I think
14 matches
Mail list logo
