std.xml should just go

[so]

> What about ...
> http://dsource.org/projects/xmlp
>
> well documented, well tested, reasonable speed.
>
> But I think std.xml is not the biggest problem.
> Problem #1 The chaotic non-managed way phobos evolves.

What does that mean? Top down OOP?

> Problem #3 Andrei's range obsession. Andrei : Please show a pure range  
> based implementation of, say, a Map. The basic ADT is already in place.

This is wrong, having a unified (range for D) interface is necessary for  
many reasons, mainly composability.
If you have arguments against ranges, say so we get to know them and maybe  
solve/replace with something better.

> I got more and more the feeling that the D2 monster was made just for  
> ranges. The smart and elegant D1 design is definitely dead an gone. I  
> think I am not the only one who would prefer a D1 plus instead of D2.

Isn't it apples to oranges? I agree on a few features D2 made mistakes but  
ranges not one of them.
Also, you seem to favor "one paradigm (OOP) to rule them all" but at the  
same time against "one interface to rule them all" which is IMO more  
palatable comparing to the first one.