From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Problems with xml-parse-string Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 01:59:21 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87pqw6d7nz.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87zkvaiked.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87vd5ymptn.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87vd5x7ty2.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1285199979 9848 80.91.229.12 (22 Sep 2010 23:59:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:59:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 23 01:59:38 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OyZDr-00071o-Er for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 01:59:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51931 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OyZDr-0005RY-3c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:59:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41475 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OyZDh-0005RS-9K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:59:30 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OyZDg-0006NM-5C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:59:25 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:38991) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OyZDg-0006NI-2x for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:59:24 -0400 Original-Received: from dyn.144-85-173-224.dsl.vtx.ch ([144.85.173.224]:11232 helo=fmsmemgm.homelinux.net) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OyZDf-0002ci-00; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:59:23 -0400 Original-Received: by fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 526026611D; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 01:59:21 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87vd5x7ty2.fsf@stupidchicken.com> (Chong Yidong's message of "Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:07:33 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:130645 Archived-At: >>> Yeah I like that too. After seeing two of its outputs, I quickly noticed >>> the pattern and just create some short two-liners to access the tree. >> Nice. :-) >> Perhaps Stefan's idea of just naming the functions `libxml-parse-*' was >> the best to avoid the compatibility discussion. > Having two xml parsers that provide slightly different outputs, even > though they do the exact same thing, is a problem regardless of what > their names are. That's true, but that doesn't mean we have to settle on xml.el's format. We can also decide that it's a good opportunity to improve up the format. FWIW, while I haven't use sml.el much, the little bit I've used it was not particularly pleasant, partly because of the odd format. I don't know how/why the xml.el was chosen and how much thought was put into it, but my experience with it is not 100% positive. Stefan