From: Jim Menard <jimm@...>
Date: 2001-12-03T11:20:43+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:27309] Re: REXML 1.1a6

Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com> writes:

> MikkelFJ wrote:
> 
> > Could someone please briefly wrap up the pro/cons of the different XML
> > parsers in Ruby.
> 
> *IMHO*, and not complete:
> 
[snip]
> REXML, NQXML:
> 
[snip]
> > conformance,
> 
> 
> comparable, ~ 70% - 90%.
> UTF-8, UTF-16, and Unicode also seem to be a problem; it seems as if 
> this is a shortcoming of Ruby, not of the XML packages.
> 
> AFAIK, REXML aims @ becoming 100% conformant.
> Perhaps Jim wants to state his plans for NQXML.

Making NQXML 100% comformant is not a burning desire of mine. NQXML started
as a challenge to myself: write an XML parser (which I'd never done before)
in Ruby.

That said, I have gradually been bringing NQXML closer to 100% conformance.
It may never get there; NQXML has already far surpassed my meager needs and
expectations. Besides, the XML spec is fairly convoluted and I don't even
understand bits of it.

I'm actually more interested in making NQXML faster than making it more
conformant. Funny thing is, I've been spending much more of my time on the
latter. I must admit that having other people actually use NQXML has
changed my outlook a bit.

Does this answer your implicit question?

Jim
-- 
Jim Menard, jimm@io.com, http://www.io.com/~jimm/
"COGITO, EGGO SUM." I think, therefore I am a waffle.
   -- .sig of Mr. Ska on Slashdot.org