> and to answer specifically the question; > > 'What would you be able to do with it that you couldn't do if it were > a module ?' > > there is no difference in usage.
Perhaps a pro XML-er can weigh in. Unlike many others on this list, I use XML for almost everything. I think the point is what you're saying here above, Jim. The benefits you describe of a native XML data type boil down to a) encouraging a common approach to processing, and b) not having to import modules. The point of DOM and other models is to accomplish 'a' without regard to language, and 'b' is going to be a benefit (not a drawback) to most users who value options. "Encouraging a common approach" is not an easy or necessarily smart thing in the XML space. I expect that XQuery is going to become more popular over the next 5 years, and that similar domain-specific languages will supplant DOM to a large extent. There's a reason that entire grammars like XPath and XQuery exist to do one thing and one thing alone. Let these languages do what they do well, and let Perl use them via modules (I'm working on an XQilla module now). A native XML type would only serve to antiquate Perl 6 long before it's time (!), and is therefore a ... nonstarter.
