std.xml should just go

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Thursday, February 03, 2011 15:51:10 %u wrote:
> == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy at yahoo.com)'s article
> 
> > I hate to fuel this any further, but I want to re-iterate what I have
> > learned.  Please re-read my summary (titled "SHOO's Time code --
> > conclusion") in the announce group.
> > I personally went through great lengths to satisfy 1.  It was 2 that was
> > the problem.
> > Seeing that the same author who did not give approval to relicense the
> > time code is an author of Tango's XML code, I doubt his views have
> > changed. -Steve
> 
> With only two(or one even) off these three helping out: larsivi, kris and
> stonecobra, you can get quite a bit of (older) code readable.

Which brings us back to Andrei's point. There are plenty of other good XML 
libraries out there. We have no need to base Phobos code off of Tango. Let's just 
drop it and move on.

I only brought up Tango in the first place to point out that it is a goal of the 
new std.xml to at least come close to Tango's performance in parsing XML, 
because Tango's XML parser is very fast. It's a point which has been brought up 
before and I believe that it still holds. However, that doesn't mean that we 
need to deal with the Tango API or source code, and we definitely don't want any 
more debates about "us vs them" or any such nonsense.

Let's just move on.

- Jonathan M Davis