SEUL: Re: Working

[Mark Dunnett <mdunnett@citilink.com>]

I agree (about ActiveState and their license, that is). 

I have been surfing to see what else is out there. There are a couple of
HTML parsers/embedders out there too (a couple in CPAN). Just checking to
see if the wheel is out there.

Mark

On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Roger Dingledine wrote:

> [I cc'ed this to seul-pub-www, to keep people informed of what
>  people are working on. Hope nobody minds.]
> 
> In message <Pine.GSO.3.96.980910130653.24888A-100000@homebase>, mdunnett@citilink.com writes:
> >There is a parser at ActiveState called XML::Parser. Pretty cool, does
> >basically the same thing SDOC is doing with XML. It may be possible to
> >take this parser and make some small additions to it, giving us current
> >SDOC functionality along with XML. I'm playing around with it now. The
> >parser can be found at:
> >http://www.activestate.com/ActivePerl/download.htm
> >In the meantime I will continue with SDOC.
> >
> >Mark
> 
> Ok...so I checked out activestate, and the activeperl program. It
> appears to be "yet another" port of perl to win32. There might be
> an xml::parser in there that's completely separate, but activestate
> is distributed as a win32 executable, so....
> 
> Also, I'm unconvinced that their license is satisfactory. It allows
> me to use it for free (gratis), but I have no permission to modify and
> freely redistribute. 
> 
> sdoc, on the other hand, is truly portable because it uses simple
> aspects of perl that are included in all perls, on all platforms.
> sdoc is a hell of a lot smaller, and under better licensing (fully
> GPL).
> 
> But apart from that, thanks for noticing activestate and pointing it
> out to me. I'm very curious what the differences are between sdoc and
> their xml parser. My goal with sdoc is to implement a good parser, and
> once we're done notice that hey, it supports xml too, because it's
> "just that good". :) I'm suspicious of something that is built specifically
> with xml as its goal, since it might not as flexible as it should be.
> 
> On the other hand, I might be totally confused about how easy it is to
> be xml-compliant. My goal is to make it so that we can simply assimilate
> what xml documents need by making more handlers for them, and treating them
> as normal html-style tags. Rather than saying "every xml document needs
> to have <?xml> and <!doctype> tags", we can have a handler for <?xml>, and
> if it finds a tag like that, then it assumes it's an xml-compliant document
> and deals from there. Anyway, that seems much more intuitive to me.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> --Roger
> 
>