From: Chris Morris <chrismo@...>
Date: 2003-10-03T04:05:18+09:00
Subject: Re: xml in Ruby

paul vudmaska wrote:

>>>------------
>>>      
>>>
>
>"Chris Morris" <chrismo@clabs.org> 
>The point of contention seems to be whether or not
>this is included in 
>the core language vs. a library, right? How does the
>Ruby community as 
>a 
>whole benefit from core inclusion? What's not
>satisfying to you about 
>this solution being contained in a library?
><<------------
>
>My appologies, i guess i was contentious but did not
>mean to be. 
>

Sorry, poor word choice on my part, I didn't intend for my comment or 
questions to be harsh or negative. I just wanted to point out what I saw 
as the key point and to try to get to the meat of it.

>My point is that that ruby might benefit from an xml
>type, it need not be in the core if i were
>burdensome/overkill/redundant- but use it much as i
>would with rexml just snuggled up to ruby a little
>more. So maybe we are not getting much. I hope you
>guys dont think that i dont like rexml, its awesome. I
>was  thinking more of a promotion.
>
I understood your desire to have something like REXML become more 
inclusive, I just wasn't hearing a clear argument as to the benefit of 
having something like REXML be native rather than one require statement 
away. I think we're caught up now, though. Thx!

-- 

Chris
http://clabs.org/blogki