On Nov 18, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Fredrik Lundh wrote: > Chas Emerick wrote: > >> Further, the fact that ET/lxml works the way that it does makes me >> think that there may be some other landmines in the underlying model >> that we might not have discovered until some days, weeks, etc., had >> passed > > so the real reason you posted your original post was to spread some > FUD, > not to get help? that's a bit disappointing.
<sarcasm> Yeah, that's exactly it. In fact, if you look back at the head of this thread, you'll see how I was looking to disparage ET. I especially wanted to make sure ET's API doesn't get any traction in the python community. It's especially important that ET not find popular success and acclaim -- I'd have quite a bit to gain from it remaining a niche library. </sarcasm> Fredrik, I wasn't attempting to spread anything. I was confused, I posed some illustrative examples, and asked for people's thoughts. Your reply gave me the right vocabulary to find more information (i.e. about Infoset), and I replied with a overview of what I had learned so as to benefit anyone with similar questions or confusion in the future. A discussion ensued. ET (and lxml) is obviously extremely successful, widely used, and for good reason. It's just not right for us, but you incorrectly surmised that I was simply lazy by not modifying/extending ET/lxml to make it suitable for our purposes even when other libraries existed that better meshed with our requirements. I tried to answer as straightforwardly as possible, and (regrettably, it turns out) included the fact that I had worried that our apparent conceptual differences indicated that we might find other instances where ET/ lxml works differently than we would expect. I think that's very rational, and doesn't speak poorly of ET in any way (especially given its obvious success elsewhere). - Chas -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
