>> On one hand I agree that ET should be emphasized since it's the better
>> API with a much faster implementation. But I also understand Martin's
>> point of view that minidom has its place, so IMHO some sort of
>> compromise should be reached. Perhaps we can recommend using ET for
>> those not sp
On 2/6/2012 8:01 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
On one hand I agree that ET should be emphasized since it's the better
API with a much faster implementation. But I also understand Martin's
point of view that minidom has its place, so IMHO some sort of
compromise should be reached. Perhaps we can recom
> What should change?
>
> a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right tool right
> from the start. Instead of using the totally misleading wording that it uses
> now, it should be honest about the performance characteristics of MiniDOM
> and should actively suggest that those
On Dec 9, 2011 3:04 AM, "Stefan Behnel" wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I think Py3.3 would be a good milestone for cleaning up the stdlib
support for XML. Note upfront: you may or may not know me as the maintainer
of lxml, the de-facto non-stdlib standard Python XML tool. This (lengthy)
post was trig
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 10:02, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I think Py3.3 would be a good milestone for cleaning up the stdlib support
> for XML. Note upfront: you may or may not know me as the maintainer of lxml,
> the de-facto non-stdlib standard Python XML tool. This (lengthy) post wa
Le 16/12/2011 07:53, Stefan Behnel a écrit :
> Additionally, the documentation on the xml.sax page would benefit from
> the following paragraph:
>
> """
> [[Note: The xml.sax package provides an implementation of the SAX
> interface whose API is similar to that in other programming languages.
> U
Stefan Behnel, 14.12.2011 20:41:
It's clear from the
discussion that there are still users and that new code is still being
written that uses MiniDOM. However, I would argue that this cannot possibly
be performance critical code and that it only deals with somewhat small
documents. I say that bec
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> If these changes are considered acceptable, I'll copy the above over to the
> documentation bug I opened at
>
> http://bugs.python.org/issue11379
>
> Can these doc changes go into both 2.7 and 3.3? Given that there is no
> important differenc
Stefan Behnel, 09.12.2011 09:02:
I think Py3.3 would be a good milestone for cleaning up the stdlib support
for XML.
[...]
I still think it is, so let me sum up the current discussion here.
What should change?
a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right tool
right from
"Martin v. Löwis", 14.12.2011 22:20:
Am 14.12.2011 20:41, schrieb Stefan Behnel:
"Martin v. Löwis", 14.12.2011 19:14:
Am 12.12.2011 10:04, schrieb Stefan Behnel:
"Martin v. Löwis", 11.12.2011 23:39:
I can't recall anyone working on any substantial improvements
during the
last six years or so,
Am 14.12.2011 20:41, schrieb Stefan Behnel:
> "Martin v. Löwis", 14.12.2011 19:14:
>> Am 12.12.2011 10:04, schrieb Stefan Behnel:
>>> "Martin v. Löwis", 11.12.2011 23:39:
> I can't recall anyone working on any substantial improvements
> during the
> last six years or so, and the reason
Xavier Morel, 14.12.2011 20:54:
On 2011-12-14, at 20:41 , Stefan Behnel wrote:
I meant: "lack of interest in improving them". It's clear from the
discussion that there are still users and that new code is still being
written that uses MiniDOM. However, I would argue that this cannot
possibly be
On 2011-12-14, at 20:41 , Stefan Behnel wrote:
> I meant: "lack of interest in improving them". It's clear from the discussion
> that there are still users and that new code is still being written that uses
> MiniDOM. However, I would argue that this cannot possibly be performance
> critical cod
"Martin v. Löwis", 14.12.2011 19:14:
Am 12.12.2011 10:04, schrieb Stefan Behnel:
"Martin v. Löwis", 11.12.2011 23:39:
I can't recall anyone working on any substantial improvements during the
last six years or so, and the reason for that seems obvious to me.
What do you think is the reason? It
> Just look through the xml-sig page, basically all requests regarding
> PyXML during the last five years deal with problems in installing it,
> i.e. *before* even starting to use it. So you can't use this to claim
> that people really *are* still using it.
I'm not so sure. In many of these cases,
Am 12.12.2011 10:04, schrieb Stefan Behnel:
> "Martin v. Löwis", 11.12.2011 23:39:
>>> I can't recall anyone working on any substantial improvements during the
>>> last six years or so, and the reason for that seems obvious to me.
>>
>> What do you think is the reason? It's not at all obvious to me
Stefan Behnel, 12.12.2011 10:59:
Just look through the xml-sig page
Hmm, I meant "xml-sig mailing list archive" here ...
Stefan
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http:/
"Martin v. Löwis", 11.12.2011 23:03:
Am 09.12.2011 10:09, schrieb Xavier Morel:
On 2011-12-09, at 09:41 , Martin v. Löwis wrote:
a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right
tool right from the start. Instead of using the totally
misleading wording that it uses now, it shou
"Martin v. Löwis", 11.12.2011 23:39:
I can't recall anyone working on any substantial improvements during the
last six years or so, and the reason for that seems obvious to me.
What do you think is the reason? It's not at all obvious to me.
Just to repeat myself for the third time here: lack
Martin,
You seem heavily invested in minidom.
In the near future I will need to parse and rewrite parts of an xml file
created by a third-party program (PrintShopMail, for the curious).
It contains both binary and textual data.
Would you recommend minidom for this purpose? What other purpose
On 2011-12-11, at 23:03 , Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> People are still using PyXML, despite it's not being maintained anymore.
> Telling them to replace 4DOM with minidom is much more appropriate than
> telling them to rewrite in ET.
>From my understanding, Stefan's suggestion is mostly aimed at "new
> I can't recall anyone working on any substantial improvements during the
> last six years or so, and the reason for that seems obvious to me.
What do you think is the reason? It's not at all obvious to me.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
P
Am 09.12.2011 16:09, schrieb Dirkjan Ochtman:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 09:02, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right tool right
>> from the start.
>> b) cElementTree should finally loose it's "special" status as a separate
>> library and disappear
> For the various XML libraries, a message along the lines of "Note: The
> module is a . If all you
> are trying to do is read and write XML files, consider using the
> xml.etree.ElementTree module instead".
I wouldn't mind such a wording. I still would mind the changes that
Stefan proposed (whic
Am 09.12.2011 10:09, schrieb Xavier Morel:
> On 2011-12-09, at 09:41 , Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>> a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right
>>> tool right from the start. Instead of using the totally
>>> misleading wording that it uses now, it should be honest about
>>> the
On 12/10/2011 9:25 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
On Dec 10, 2011, at 6:30 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
A little data: the HTML5lib project lives at
https://code.google.com/p/html5lib/
It has 4 owners and 22 other committers.
If there really are 4 'owners' rather than 4 people with admin access to
On Dec 10, 2011, at 6:30 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> A little data: the HTML5lib project lives at
> https://code.google.com/p/html5lib/
> It has 4 owners and 22 other committers.
>
> The most recent release, html5lib 0.90 for Python, is nearly 2 years old.
> Since there is a separate Python3 repos
On 12/10/2011 4:32 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
On Dec 10, 2011, at 2:38 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Note, however, that html5lib is likely way too big to add it to the
stdlib, and that BeautifulSoup lacks a parser for non-conforming HTML
in Python 3, which would be the target release series for bet
On Dec 10, 2011, at 2:38 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Note, however, that html5lib is likely way too big to add it to the stdlib,
> and that BeautifulSoup lacks a parser for non-conforming HTML in Python 3,
> which would be the target release series for better HTML support. So,
> whatever library
Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Bill Janssen, 09.12.2011 19:15:
> > I think another thing that might go into "refreshing the batteries" is a
> > feature comparison of BeautifulSoup and HTML5lib against the stdlib
> > competition, to see what needs to be added/revised. Having to switch to
> > an outside p
On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 19:39 +0100, Xavier Morel wrote:
> On 2011-12-09, at 19:15 , Bill Janssen wrote:
> > I use ElementTree for parsing valid XML, but minidom for producing it.
> Could you expand on your reasons to use minidom for producing XML?
To throw my 2c in here:
I personally normally use
Bill Janssen, 09.12.2011 19:15:
I think another thing that might go into "refreshing the batteries" is a
feature comparison of BeautifulSoup and HTML5lib against the stdlib
competition, to see what needs to be added/revised. Having to switch to
an outside package for parsing possibly invalid HTM
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 00:43, Matt Joiner wrote:
> I second this. The doco is very bad.
>
It would be constructive to open issues for specific problems in the
documentation. I'm sure this won't be hard to fix. Documentation should not
be the roadblock for using a library.
Eli
__
I second this. The doco is very bad.
On Dec 10, 2011 6:34 AM, "Bill Janssen" wrote:
> Xavier Morel wrote:
>
> > On 2011-12-09, at 19:15 , Bill Janssen wrote:
> > > I use ElementTree for parsing valid XML, but minidom for producing it.
> > Could you expand on your reasons to use minidom for produ
Xavier Morel wrote:
> On 2011-12-09, at 19:15 , Bill Janssen wrote:
> > I use ElementTree for parsing valid XML, but minidom for producing it.
> Could you expand on your reasons to use minidom for producing XML?
Inertia, I guess. I tried that first, and it seems to work.
I tend to use html5lib
On 2011-12-09, at 19:15 , Bill Janssen wrote:
> I use ElementTree for parsing valid XML, but minidom for producing it.
Could you expand on your reasons to use minidom for producing XML?
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.
On 9 December 2011 18:15, Bill Janssen wrote:
> I use ElementTree for parsing valid XML, but minidom for producing it.
>
> I think another thing that might go into "refreshing the batteries" is a
> feature comparison of BeautifulSoup and HTML5lib against the stdlib
> competition, to see what needs
Mike Meyer wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:02:35 +0100
> Stefan Behnel wrote:
>
> > a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right
> > tool right from the start.
> > b) cElementTree should finally loose it's "special" status as a
> > separate library and disappear as an accel
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:02:35 +0100
Stefan Behnel wrote:
> a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right
> tool right from the start.
> b) cElementTree should finally loose it's "special" status as a
> separate library and disappear as an accelerator module behind
> ElementTree
+1
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 09:02, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right tool right
>> from the start.
>> b) cElementTree should finally loose it's "special" status as a separate
>> librar
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 09:02, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right tool right
> from the start.
> b) cElementTree should finally loose it's "special" status as a separate
> library and disappear as an accelerator module behind ElementTree.
An at
Mostly uninformed +1 to Stefan's suggestions from me.
Regards
Antoine.
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:02:35 +0100
Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I think Py3.3 would be a good milestone for cleaning up the stdlib support
> for XML. Note upfront: you may or may not know me as the maintainer
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 6:41 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right tool
>> right from the start. Instead of using the totally misleading wording
>> that it uses now, it should be honest about the performance
>> characteristics of MiniDOM a
On 2011-12-09, at 09:41 , Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right tool
>> right from the start. Instead of using the totally misleading wording
>> that it uses now, it should be honest about the performance
>> characteristics of MiniDOM and should
"Martin v. Löwis", 09.12.2011 09:41:
a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right tool
right from the start. Instead of using the totally misleading wording
that it uses now, it should be honest about the performance
characteristics of MiniDOM and should actively suggest that
> a) The stdlib documentation should help users to choose the right tool
> right from the start. Instead of using the totally misleading wording
> that it uses now, it should be honest about the performance
> characteristics of MiniDOM and should actively suggest that those who
> don't know what to
Hi everyone,
I think Py3.3 would be a good milestone for cleaning up the stdlib support
for XML. Note upfront: you may or may not know me as the maintainer of
lxml, the de-facto non-stdlib standard Python XML tool. This (lengthy) post
was triggered by the following kind of conversation that I
47 matches
Mail list logo