On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 14:38 -0800, Peter Seibel wrote: > On Jan 15, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Keith F Irwin wrote:
>> Revive xmls? > I've used XMLS to and like it for the same reasons you do. However I > think some of the new kids on the block are even better and not much > more heavyweight. (Some even support parsing to XMLS-compatible > output as an option.) So a good Gardener's project would be to do a > bit of research and write up the pros and cons of the different XML > parsers out there (are they maintained, are they complete, what > limitations do they have, etc.) Then it might make sense to do what > we can to help out the current front runner, whether that's supplying > patches, docs, test cases, or simply pointing people to it. Okay. > The main XML parsers I know of are: > > XMLS -- small code base, simple to use, not full featured > CL-XML[1] -- huge code base, impossible (for me) to understand, > extremely full featured > CXML[2] -- I haven't looked at this one, but I hear it's a happy > medium. It looks like cxml is the clear winner. If I can figure out how to get it to read xml (xmls-style) from a string (and write to a string), I'll just port my code over to it and start using it. I've looked at cl-xml too, and pretty much decided that whatever value it may or may not have: crafting simple XML to post REST-style, or pulling in RSS feeds and dealing with their idiosyncrasies wasn't one of them. --K > [1] <http://pws.prserv.net/James.Anderson/XML/> > [2] <http://www.cliki.net/cxml> > > Maybe you can start there and make a page on the ALU Wiki to > summarize the state of the XML in Lisp world. > > -Peter > _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
