-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel Quinlan writes: > Faisal N Jawdat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> We can probably safely up the requirement for HTML::Parser in our next > >> major revision. Conditioning is also okay. > > > What are reasons against doing this? I've sat through the "What is > > the regexp for matching this HTML pattern", "Don't use a regexp to > > parse HTML, use a real parser", "Here, HTML::Parser", "Wait, that's > > an optional install -- we can't rely on that" conversation at least 4 > > times *in the last 10 days*. > > I have no idea what your point is. > > We already require HTML::Parser. The only question is whether or not we > should raise the minimum required version. I suggested that we raise it > and I doubt anyone will have major objections since we haven't raised > the minimum version for a while. yep, Faisal -- you're *waaay* off here.... - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFDB3LEMJF5cimLx9ARAhWlAJwNDOTrL+4uMqF89wr2kayyxyFPPQCgu3Mr ohEfEocqxZYnQseDo7zxBww= =ac5Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
