On Wednesday, 2 March 2016 at 06:59:49 UTC, Tobias Müller wrote:
> What's the usecase of DOM outside of browser interoperability/scripting? The API isn't particularly nice, especially in languages with a rich type system.

I find my extended dom to be very nice, especially thanks to D's type system. I use it for a lot of things: using web apis, html scraping, config file stuff, working on my own documents, and even as my web template system.

Basically, dom.d made xml cool to me.

Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 March 2016 at 06:59:49 UTC, Tobias Müller wrote:
>> What's the usecase of DOM outside of browser interoperability/scripting? The API isn't particularly nice, especially in languages with a rich type system.
> 
> I find my extended dom to be very nice, especially thanks to D's type system. I use it for a lot of things: using web apis, html scraping, config file stuff, working on my own documents, and even as my web template system.
> 
> Basically, dom.d made xml cool to me.

Sure, some kind of DOM is certainly useful. But the standard XML-DOM isn't
particularly nice.
What's the point of a linked list style interface when you have ranges in
the language?

On Sunday, 3 May 2015 at 17:39:48 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
> std.xml has been considered not up to specs nearly 3 years now. Time to build a successor. I currently plan the following featues for it:
>
> - SAX and DOM parser
> - in-situ / slicing parsing when possible (forward range?)
> - compile time switch (CTS) for lazy attribute parsing
> - CTS for encoding (ubyte(ASCII), char(utf8), ... )
> - CTS for input validating
> - performance
>
> Not much code yet, I'm currently building the performance test suite https://github.com/burner/std.xml2
>
> Please post you feature requests, and please keep the posts DRY and on topic.

Robert, we have had some student interest in GSOC for XML.  Would you be interested in mentoring a student to work with you on this.

Craig

On Saturday, 5 March 2016 at 15:20:12 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
> Robert, we have had some student interest in GSOC for XML.  Would you be interested in mentoring a student to work with you on this.
>
> Craig

Of course

On Sunday, 6 March 2016 at 11:46:00 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 March 2016 at 15:20:12 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
>> Robert, we have had some student interest in GSOC for XML.  Would you be interested in mentoring a student to work with you on this.
>>
>> Craig
>
> Of course

Hi,
I don't know if this is the right spot to join the conversation;
I'm student and I'd really love to work on std.xml for GSoC!

I'm just waiting March 14 to apply.

On Sunday, 6 March 2016 at 11:46:00 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 March 2016 at 15:20:12 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
>> Robert, we have had some student interest in GSOC for XML.  Would you be interested in mentoring a student to work with you on this.
>>
>> Craig
>
> Of course

Great.  Can you please get in touch by email so I can add you to the mentors list:

craig dot dillabaugh at gmail dot com

Cheers

For everyone's information, I've posted a pull request to Mr. Schadek's github repository, with a proposed Simple API for XML (SAX) stub.  I'd really appreciate reviews of the stub's interfaces.

https://github.com/burner/std.xml2/pull/5