From: John Carter <john.carter@...>
Date: 2001-11-12T10:18:45+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:24901] Re: XML libraries (Re:  Re: ruby and webservices)

On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, James Britt (rubydev) wrote:

> The concerns about which any given Ruby XML library does makes me
> wonder what, exactly, "XML out of the box" means.

> Full W3C DOM Level 1 support?
> DOM Level 2?
> Non-W3C-DOM-but-more-Ruby-like?

Personally I have no time or use for the "DOM's", and I will admit I can't
see why they even bothered...

A Ruby-way native ruby objects is _much_ better. I have done a code that
used Perl DOM and native Perl objects and in native Ruby (NQXML) and I
would simply not bother with the DOM route at all.

I can see the use of having a fairly standards compliant XPath
implementation.

Especially given Ruby's non-western audience, handling the charset's right
is probably worth having, although I myself have no call for it.

A hydrid Ruby/Something else XML library would be hard to stick in the
box, and tends to be a trifle heavy weight.

I used NQXML for a small app and liked it, it seemed to have a good clean
API. If the API is good, ruby-ish and stable, one can improve the engine
with time if needed.

The whole XML standards scenario is built on layers with XML at the
bottom. A firm choice on a base ruby XML library might enable more rapid
development of the upper layers.

Scripting languages made their entrance on the back of "everything is
ASCII text, and we're really good at manipulating ASCII text".

Scripting languages can make a very important step further on the back of
"Everything is an XML document, and we're really good at manipulating
XML."

I would regard being XML aware out-of-the-box as a very high priority item
for any modern scripting language.


John Carter                             Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics                        Fax   : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch                Email : john.carter@tait.co.nz
New Zealand