From: Shlomi Fish <shlo...@iglu.org.il>
> On Friday 22 Jan 2010 00:44:39 Jenda Krynicky wrote:
> > From: Shlomi Fish <shlo...@iglu.org.il>
> >
> > > > This because you can very well represent XML in Perl data structures
> > > > without any loss of complexity. See for example XML::Compile.
> > >
> > > Wrong! If for example you have something like {{{ <p>Hello this is a <a
> > > href="http://www.example.tld/";>link for something</a></p> }}}, then
> > > XML-Simple will make a mess out of it. And XML-Simple tends to break
> > > more often than not, and is philosopically unsound.
> >
> > Lovely. So you just found a type of XMLs that is and never was meant
> > to be handled by XML::Simple and no one would ever suggest using
> > XML::Simple for.
>
> Yes, and that is what XML is best for. Besides that, XML::Simple often puts
> arrays where there should be hashes, hashes where there should be arrays and
> tends to break more often than not.
Marking up a document? Well, in some cases good enough for, yes.
And whether "should" depends.
> > Besides Dr. Ruud talked about XML::Compile, not XML::Simple in that
> > sentence.
>
> Fine. XML::Compile seems to be for SOAP, which is a subset of the general XML
> functionality.
I don't think it's only for SOAP. Besides even if it was, a
specialised tool is most often best. You can cut and screw and saw
and uncork and ... with your "swiss army" knife, but will it be more
convenient than using a big knife, a real screwdriver, a real saw,
... hardly.
> > XML::LibXML is overdesigned overcomplicated horribly documented
> > comitee-designed thing. But everyone to his or her own tastes.
>
> You're missing many commas in this sentence of yours and a trailing "and".
I don't think I do. Is that "a hard and black rock" or "a hard black
rock"?
I
> disagree about it being either over-designed, over-complicated and committee
> (not "comitee")-designed,
apppparenttllyy I did not double enough lettterrs. (Bloody english
speaking people, what they write doesn't resemble what they read and
vice versa and they do not know when to stop uselessly repeating
letters.)
> because it is very elegant, powerful and flexible.
> It may not be very well-documented, but I could manage with the current state
> of its documentation. And it mirrors the current state of XML standards
Which, if you ask me, is a drawback.
I've tried to read the XML standards and the standards of a few more
hyped xwhatever things. Bleargh. Overcomplicated. Pompous.
Indigestible.
Jenda
===== je...@krynicky.cz === http://Jenda.Krynicky.cz =====
When it comes to wine, women and song, wizards are allowed
to get drunk and croon as much as they like.
-- Terry Pratchett in Sourcery
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org
For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org
http://learn.perl.org/
