January 17, 2020
On Friday, January 17, 2020 4:01:27 PM MST H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I used to be skeptical of XML once. Now that skepticism has acquired a significant dose of disgust as well.

If you completely strip out everything related to DOCTYPE, it's a decent format. It still has a few problems (e.g. for some reason it disallows a number of valid Unicode characters; it would have been nice to be able to put in binary data inside of cdata sections - you'd think that that's what it would be for - but you can't), but it's highly usable. Where XML gets _really_ bad is all of the stuff that gets built on top of it with various standards, and it's that stuff that I think has resulted in XML getting such a bad reputation. There's a lot of over-engineered stuff out there which uses XML. Either way, it sure deserves a bad reputation for having the DOCTYPE section.

- Jonathan M Davis



January 23, 2020
On Friday, 17 January 2020 at 21:59:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> I'd much rather avoid all of that pain - especially since I don't think that an XML parser belongs in a standard library in the first place. If someone wants to use dxml, it's easily fetched using dub, and if someone doesn't want to use dub, it's trivial enough to download the code and integrate it into their project however they feel like it.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Does it make sense to create a sort of C++ Boost analog - a subset of dub packages which are needed by many people and maintained by community with less bureaucracy in comparison to Phobos? So, "BoostD" will use Phobos, but the former will be less stable. It will be updated frequently.



January 23, 2020
On Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 07:04:13 UTC, Eliatto wrote:
> On Friday, 17 January 2020 at 21:59:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> I'd much rather avoid all of that pain - especially since I don't think that an XML parser belongs in a standard library in the first place. If someone wants to use dxml, it's easily fetched using dub, and if someone doesn't want to use dub, it's trivial enough to download the code and integrate it into their project however they feel like it.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>
> Does it make sense to create a sort of C++ Boost analog - a subset of dub packages which are needed by many people and maintained by community with less bureaucracy in comparison to Phobos? So, "BoostD" will use Phobos, but the former will be less stable. It will be updated frequently.

More frequently that the D release cycle?
IMHO, commercials can't develop against a too fast moving target ...



January 23, 2020
On Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 07:04:13 UTC, Eliatto wrote:
>
> Does it make sense to create a sort of C++ Boost analog - a subset of dub packages which are needed by many people and maintained by community with less bureaucracy in comparison to Phobos? So, "BoostD" will use Phobos, but the former will be less stable. It will be updated frequently.

https://github.com/dlang-community/discussions
January 24, 2020
On Friday, 10 January 2020 at 14:59:23 UTC, berni44 wrote:
> Please vote: should std.xml be deprecated and moved to undeaD?

I'm closing the vote as I think, there wont be much additional change...

Result:

Yes: 11
No: 3
(Active) abstention: 1

So I'll file a deprecation PR soon...
January 24, 2020
On Friday, 17 January 2020 at 21:59:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Monday, 13 January 2020 at 11:09:15 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>> > dxml is the closest and the author isn't keen to go down that right now.
>>
>> Would be nice to know, why.
>
> Honestly, the only reason that I would consider putting dxml [...]

While I think, it would be possible to have a version in Phobos that explicitly states that it does not support the doctype stuff (but all else), I perfectly can understand the other reasons you gave. So all in all, putting dxml into Phobos is currently not a possibility...

Thanks for your reply! :-)
1 2 3 4
Next ›   Last »