Re: Problems with xml-parse-string

[Wojciech Meyer <wojciech.meyer@googlemail.com>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Wojciech Meyer <wojciech.meyer@googlemail.com>
>> Cc: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 14:59:59 +0100
>> 
>> Saying, `I used Sxml with Lisp in a real project and I had no problems
>> with it at all' is enough?
>
> No.  You didn't show any real code, whereas Lars was requested to do
> that.

OK.. It was said quite a few times and some people showed up the code.

>
>> To emphasise, a real project, which means
>> working for food. How can be a better proof or technical reason.
>
> Didn't you ever see projects that were finished successfully although
> their technical basis is questionable?  I see that every day.

Yes, but that does not mean we want our technical side of Emacs to be
questionable. Especially in case where clearly we can do better, because
the subject has been researched. Yes, I have seen many projects like
this but this is not the point of the discussion...

Successful also means many things. (Windows operating system is also a
good example, during it's development it was hardly using so much
knowledge that had been building up for 3 decades, and that was clearly
a mistake, until Unix people came and invent NT..., but still Windows
has been succeeding from the beginning)

If we still have a choice to change anything, and it is well known and
researched subject we should always make a design decision based on
the idiomatic approach to avoid pitfalls in future.

Somebody would say, let's replace XML in the industry with SXML, clearly
it is less verbose and more readable, if you want to have some parallel
example.
 
Wojciech