std.xml should just go

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:41:08 -0500, Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> Am 03.02.2011 22:26, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:03:55 -0500, Daniel Gibson  
>> <metalcaedes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 03.02.2011 21:48, schrieb Tomek Sowiński:
>>>> Speaking of Tango, may I look at it? I remember that beef over the  
>>>> first
>>>> datetime and it gives me shivers...
>>>>
>>>
>>> You probably shouldn't look at the source.
>>> I dunno about the interface (documentation) - it's certainly not  
>>> illegal to take
>>> inspiration from it, but maybe then people will again claim that  
>>> source was
>>> stolen.. but when you claim that you haven't looked at the source it  
>>> may be ok..
>>
>> It has been posited by Tango's developers that simply looking at the
>> documentation of a D library isn't enough to understand the library, you
>> probably have looked at the source.  Until they change that opinion, I  
>> would
>> avoid even the documentation.
>>
>> http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/2010-April/000370.html
>>
>> The pertinent quote from there:
>>
>> "In my opinion, claiming a clean room implementation of an API in D is
>> difficult, if for no other reason that it is (due to imperfect doc  
>> generation
>> etc) somewhat difficult to properly study a D API without at the same  
>> time
>> reading the source (or glimpsing at it)."
>>
>
> They can claim whatever they want.. if Tomek says he only looked at the
> documentation (for an idea how a good interface for a XML lib may look  
> like)
> they can hardly prove anything.

This exact situation was the case of the prior-mentioned infringement  
accusation.

-Steve