Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 26086 invoked by uid 500); 29 Aug 2002 18:55:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 26071 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2002 18:55:03 -0000 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:54:52 -0700 From: Jon Travis To: Aaron Bannert , rbb@apache.org, dev@httpd.apache.org, jim@jaguNET.com, dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: El-Kabong -- HTML Parser Message-ID: <20020829115452.A17218@covalent.net> References: <20020829181016.GP13980@clove.org> <20020829182924.GR13980@clove.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020829182924.GR13980@clove.org>; from aaron@clove.org on Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:29:24AM -0700 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:29:24AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 02:24:28PM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > > +1 from me, I prefer APR actually. > > > > I am really uncomfortable with this going under the APR project. As > > things stand right now, it just doesn't fit with what we have stated our > > goals to be. > > > > If you want to change our stated goals, then go ahead and do it. Just > > committing code that doesn't fit with our goals isn't the way to do that. > > (I will defer answering this for an apr-only discussion.) > > > I will make one exception to that statement. If it lands inside of > > APR-util, under the XML directory, and it is made to work with the XML > > parser, I can accept that landing spot. As it fits in closer with our > > goals (I think). Jim, I can't decide if this is what you meant or not. > > I'm +1 on integrating it into our XML stuff. I consider it to be > equivalent to apr-util, so either we put it inside apr-util, or > we create a new APR subproject or sub-library for it. I'm not keen on integrating it into the APR XML layer for a few reasons: 1 - APR's XML is not SAX-stylee. El-Kabong is. That isn't to say that E-K couldn't get a full object model interface, but it doesn't have it now. 2 - XML and HTML, while related, have several large differences which won't make a nice API (IMO). 3 - El-Kabong is quite speedy, and throwing another layer of indirection on top of it isn't particularly appealing. -- Jon