Re: Problems with xml-parse-string

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

Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com> writes:

> Leo <sdl.web@gmail.com> writes:

>> I would think those packages use the public functions offered by xml.el
>> to do their work. The structure should remain internal.
>
> The public functions return the parse tree.  I don't think it's possible
> to abstract that away.

We could transform one form to another, use exclusively one form, and
when it's needed to be compatible, translate it. It is purely a data
structure which makes actually the transition easier, and since it comes
from the same source (a very generic one, because it needs to describe
other data, that's why in the first place it maps so well to Sxml and to
Lisp generally).  I don't like idea to have two representations of the
same thing thou, and do the rewriting but it's the way it could be.

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

>   http://ssax.sourceforge.net/
> I would have thought also that htmlprag could be ported to elisp.
>   http://www.neilvandyke.org/htmlprag/

Yep, those are possible candidates for making it even easier, than
writing by hand. I don't have problems reusing C libraries at all.

Wojciech