Re: XML idea

[Alexander Malmberg]

Pete French wrote:
> > No, it doesn't.
> 
> Now that response surprises me as I though that any Apple additions
> which didnt conflict with the basic OpenStep spec were good for addition.

That's a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. In the words of the
mission page, they also need to "add substantial value", and "Where
there is a real problem with a change, we find a technically superior
work-around."  I consider a standalone framework a superior work-around.
:)

[snip]
> > depend on -base being configured a certain way isn't nice.
> 
> Now there I agree with you. It shouldnt really require yet more libraries
> to be present. How about a standalone implementation though ?

Ie. an NSXMLParser wrapper included in the standalone framework? I'd
consider it unnecessary work, but I'm not opposed to it. It wouldn't be
bloating or adding dependencies to -base, and it wouldn't be blocking a
better solution (since it'd be part of the better solution). If it also
means that code that uses the 'proper' library could integrate
(partially) with code using NSXMLParser, that would be nice.

- Alexander Malmberg