From: jweirich@... Date: 2001-09-30T04:02:05+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:21830] Re: ANN: HtmlDomGenerator 0.1 >>>>> "David" == David Alan Black writes: >> Shall I update the description and names to communicate the lack of >> DOM-iness, and lack of validation? Or does it matter? David> Well, since the DOM API is a very specific, ummm, David> specification, it's misleading to call it a DOM parser David> unless it implements that API. As for lack of validation, David> just toss "non-validating" in front of whatever else you David> call it :-) I have no problem with calling it DOM-like. That conveys the idea without raising expectations of a DOM compatible library. Jim Menard changed the description of his NQXML tree parser for the same reason. David> You've got your work cut out for you :-) (I'm perusing David> http://www.w3c.org/DOM) I still think there is still a need for a DOM compatible XML parser in Ruby. NQXML is great, but I would like to be able to switch between a pure ruby version parser (e.g. NQXML) for convienence and a C-based parser (e.g. xmlparser) for speed with minimum impact. A common DOM interface for both would be great. -- -- Jim Weirich jweirich@one.net http://w3.one.net/~jweirich --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)