std.xml should just go

[%u]

== Quote from Jonathan M Davis (jmdavisProg at gmx.com)'s article
> 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

I couldn't care less about any such debates and will not take part any of it.
As Steven Schveighoffer already contacted some of the Tango developers I thought
he might also have received a "sure" from one of them.. would be a waste to not at
least take a look at that devs code, if he exists.
But now that I reread Stevens post, he might have gotten only "no"s. ;)