[capidl] Re: [E-Lang] Concerning XML docs

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

> What I don't understand is what its relationship (of XML) to E is.

Inherently? None. However, I can suggest three reasons to facilitate access
to *some* form of XML parser library from within E:

1. XML-based RPC and object serialization is much easier to debug (I speak
from experience on this -- PCMS didn't start this way, but it was too useful
to give up).
2. If it becomes useful to do RPC exchange with XML-based applications,
XML-RPC may become an important de-facto exchange standard.
3. As a well-designed scripting language, E is a candidate language for
people trying to manipulate XML.

It is inherent in the nature of a scripting language that it must, as you
say, play nice with others.

I don't think that the parser needs to be part of the E foundations. I only
suspect that at some point users will need to be able to access an XML
parser, and if we *do* need any sort of XML parser I think we should have
one rather than two.

This is not an imminent issue.


shap