Re: Standards bearers (was Re: xml and perl 6)

2007-11-30 Thread Luke Palmer
On Nov 30, 2007 10:57 AM, David Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe some kind of Advisory Board would help, where people (who might be experts in various ways) can offer informed recommendations on what modules make a good fit for what circumstances. Ultimately, if this is something we want,

Standards bearers (was Re: xml and perl 6)

2007-11-30 Thread David Green
On 11/29/07, James Fuller wrote: but by making some fundamental xml processing available by the core (like file access, regex, and a host of other fundamental bits n bobs), u do promote a common and systematic approach to working with XML in all perl modules. As everyone else and his dog has

Re: xml and perl 6

2007-11-30 Thread David Green
On 11/29/07, James Fuller wrote: well, if my previous posts didn't attract flames this post certainly will ;) Nah, this is getting into the interesting language part! (Technically, it should be perl6+xml-language... but then the goal of perl6 is to be infinitely flexible, so I guess it

Re: xml and perl 6

2007-11-30 Thread Richard Hainsworth
By the time this got written, I see James has bowed out of the discussion with some words about 'architectural break points'. Even so, my two-penniworth: JF gave some examples of how he would like xml to be 'a part of core'. For clarity, I use xml and I have designed a language to describe