dxml 0.2.0 released

[H. S. Teoh]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 07:26:28PM +0000, nkm1 via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Monday, 12 February 2018 at 16:50:16 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Folks are free to decide to support dxml for inclusion when the time
> > comes and free to vote it as unacceptable. Personally, I think that
> > dxml's approach is ideal for XML that doesn't use entity references,
> > and I'd much rather use that kind of parser regardless of whether
> > it's in the standard library or not. I think that the D community
> > would be far better off with std.xml being replaced by dxml, but
> > whatever happens happens.

+1.  I vote for adding dxml to Phobos.


[...]
> I'm using dxml now, and it's a very good library. So I thought "it
> should be in Phobos instead of std.xml" and searched the newsgroup.
> Sorry for necroposting. Anyway, what I wanted to say is just take an
> example from Perl and call it std.xml.simple. Then people would know
> what to expect from it and would use it (because everyone likes
> simple). That would also leave a way to include std.xml.full (or some
> such) at some indefinite point in the future. Which is, in practice,
> probably never - and that's fine, because who needs DTD? screw it...
[...]

That's a good idea, actually.  That will stop people who expect full
DTD support from complaining that it's not supported by the standard
library.

I vote for adding dxml to Phobos as std.xml.simple.  We can either leave
std.xml as-is, or deprecate it and work on std.xml.full (or
std.xml.complex, or whatever).  The current state of std.xml gives a
poor impression to anyone coming to D the first time and wanting to work
with XML, and having std.xml.simple would be a big plus.


T

-- 
This is not a sentence.