Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> writes: > dieter schrieb am 09.09.2015 um 10:20: >> Palpandi writes: >>> Is it better to use pyxb than lxml? >>> >>> What are the advantages of lxml and pyxb? >> >> "pyxb" has a different aim than "lxml". >> >> "lxml" is a general purpose library to process XML documents. >> It gives you an interface to the document's resources (elements, >> attributes, comments, processing instructions) on a low level >> independ from the document type. > > lxml's toolbox is actually larger than that. There's also lxml.objectify > which provides a Python object interface to the XML tree, similar to what > data binding would give you. And you can stick your own Element object > implementations into it if you feel a need to simplify the API itself > and/or adapt it to a given document format. > > http://lxml.de/objectify.html
This is nice - but still quite far from the schema support of "pyxb". The "pyxb" binding generation generates a Python class for each type defined in the schema. You just instantiate such a class, populate the resulting object (in the normal Python way) and either use it in the construction of larger objects or serialize it as XML -- no need to worry about special construction ("objectivity.DataElement", "objectivity.SubElement", ...), no need to worry about xml namespaces. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list