From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_00_10,HTML_MESSAGE, SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE3E7BC6C for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:54:19 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAPlZn0fAXQInh2dsb2JhbACCODiNNQEBAQgKKZd9h0eBdQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,271,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="7407616" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2008 01:54:19 +0100 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m0U0sJJ9005340 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:54:19 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAPlZn0dC+VLskmdsb2JhbACCODiNNQEBAQEHBAQJChaXf4dHgXU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,271,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="6724974" Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.236]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2008 01:54:18 +0100 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id h28so61347wxd.0 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:54:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=95Fpwp5uQBmDEmHB9HFlMvu8t7bZgBA8dugvO8UIaR0=; b=BoULjPGBsZWplwaFJIj26cCKVJ7dPETlvPKGyO8OMcif1deGcYVqzR7kJq3gVm6dT3dda7cF0PoZgoMnR5NaKxb/xD3QBeQDcyOp+c+aK4dSlVqs4+P2djj5AlNDhnU8wULTKjNvhDObePRGbHCCYRu+JCKbW7olthARMzEULeM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=JYUnFkrxCkzmNQJxfUECyh+j1NkgPzoZVJBtMd/p2g6M0pOzbCgRmB3DDri0+mr5Ou8S5fyPV4xFsTiLOC2lG3af/FPVHFzV/MrZR5my9XrrL+zyM94gRy6z8VUiB/KZqjiTli5xp7fevzSceByVJllTnfgsya7yRH0ONXKiDAM= Received: by 10.142.215.5 with SMTP id n5mr65262wfg.11.1201654456719; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:54:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.112.7 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:54:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:54:16 -0500 From: "Jim Miller" To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: [OSR] Suggested topic - XML processing API MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_20991_7499375.1201654456711" X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 479FCABB.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; wiki:01 parsers:01 srfi:01 model:01 wiki:01 parsers:01 srfi:01 model:01 interfaces:01 interfaces:01 api:02 seems:03 seems:03 scheme:05 scheme:05 ------=_Part_20991_7499375.1201654456711 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Inspired by the existing recommendation on the cocan wiki for I/O, I'd like to recommend the development of a standard interface for XML processing. Currently there are many different implementations of XML parsers but their interfaces are very different and don't allow for easy swapping of implementations. On a side note, the development of these recommendations seems to be very much in the vein of an SRFI in the scheme world, which I think is an excellent model to follow for these recommendations. (which doesn't include the actual mechanics of distribution or package management which seems to be the bulk of OSR discussion). I'm willing to start the topic on the wiki but I'm simply going to take an existing XML processor and start from there. ------=_Part_20991_7499375.1201654456711 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Inspired by the existing recommendation on the cocan wiki for I/O, I'd like to recommend the development of a standard interface for XML processing.  Currently there are many different implementations of XML parsers but their interfaces are very different and don't allow for easy swapping of implementations.

On a side note, the development of these recommendations seems to be very much in the vein of an SRFI in the scheme world, which I think is an excellent model to follow for these recommendations.  (which doesn't include the actual mechanics of distribution or package management which seems to be the bulk of OSR discussion).

I'm willing to start the topic on the wiki but I'm simply going to take an existing XML processor and start from there.

------=_Part_20991_7499375.1201654456711--