david at openpartnership.net
Fri Aug 29 03:52:15 CDT 2008
2008/8/29 Terry Judd <tsj at unimelb.edu.au>
> Depending on how complex the xml is you may be better off writing your own
> parser from scratch, bypassing the revXML routines altogether.
That's what I have been doing - but this is surely a hack. With things like
atom feeds, we should have simple generic standardized libraries. Personally
I am a little tired of writing custom little parsers for every feed out
there - isn't there a better way? Half my stuff is using revXML, and half
replace / filter combinations. Most languages have standardised libraries
for this sort of thing? Or no?
> xmlparser is great there a lots of times when I don't use it to extract
> from xml files/data, particularly if I don't need to write stuff back into
> that xml.
My hope is that the new array structure will allow some generic way to deal
with hierarchical structures - whether these are outlines, xml, json, or
whatever. That still wouldn't deal with getting the data in - as there are
More information about the use-livecode