std.xml should just go

[David Nadlinger]

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…

David