From: Jordi Bunster <jordi@...>
Date: 2010-01-22T04:17:01+09:00
Subject: Re: Should Nokogiri replace REXML?

Wouldn't that make it really hard for the non C-based Ruby implementations?

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Intransition <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is probably more suited to the ruby-core mailing list, but as I
> am not following that list regularly any longer I'll bring it up here.
>
> REXML is starting to look pretty dated. I find myself no longer using
> REXML for anything and use Nokogiri instead. I suspect other
> developers are doing the same. Aaron (and Mike) have done an
> incredible job with Nokogiri. And so I think it's not unreasonable to
> suggest that it replace REXML as a standard library.
>
> The only downside I see that Nokogiri is not a pure Ruby library, but
> depends on libxml2. But given the advantages, speed, and uptake of
> Nokogiri, I would not expect that to be any sort of show-stopper.
>
> I have always thought a good XML library was important to Ruby. I kept
> libxml-ruby on life support for many years hoping someone would
> eventually come along and carry on development (it was the best I
> could do not being a C coder). That did happen eventutally and we can
> thank Dan and Charlie for all their hard work for making libxml-ruby
> an excellent library, and of course we should thank Sean who started
> the project.
>
> But Aaron came along and upped the ante with Nokogiri.
>
> So any way. I've had this thought in the back of my mind for a while,
> and just wanted to put it out there.
>
>