std.xml should just go

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:53:24 -0500, David Nadlinger <see at klickverbot.at>  
wrote:

> On 2/3/11 11:46 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> […] If they were more open and
>> willing to share code, then building off of what they have and turning  
>> it into a
>> range-based solution would likely make a lot of sense, but since that's  
>> not the
>> case, we need to figure it out on our own.
>
> Just like Andrei said, I don't think this issue is worth being discussed  
> over and over again, but I'm curious: Did somebody actually talk to  
> »Tango« resp. the authors of its XML module concerning amendment for  
> Phobos? It's needlessly fueling an »us vs. them« debate in an already  
> small community of developers which drives me crazy…

You are welcome to try.  I don't hold out much hope based on past.

I did not want to fuel a debate on "us vs. them", Phobos and Tango can  
happily co-exist without crossing paths, I just wanted to respond Tomek to  
tread carefully based on Tango representatives' prior statements, since he  
asked.  The last thing I want to see again is someone waste effort, nobody  
likes to do that.  With the correct precautions, we don't have to go  
through this again.

I think Andrei said it best -- we can find other XML libraries to learn  
from.

-Steve