On Wed, July 6, 2005 1:38 am, ChaosMedia > WebDev said: > Richard Lynch wrote: > >> >>In my limited XML experience... >> >>I have found that firing up the fancy XML parsers and tree-walkers and >>XML-writers and all that stuff, pretty much entailed a *LOT* more work >>than just hacking the file directly, and stuffing in the XML text that >>need to be there, or reading the XML and using http://php.net/explode on >>it. >> >> > well i would personnaly go straight to regexp then Why pull out the slower and more complicated RegExp engine to break up some text on a constant "<name" string? Makes no sense to me. Unless your XML is way more complicated than any XML I ever saw... Maybe if you had a TON of those whatsits where it's <name.foo...> and <name.bar...> Nah, even then, easier to explode on "<name" and then handle the .??? as text. >>Just my opinion. >> >>Disclaimer: >>I consider XML the biggest bugaboo since Y2K -- Blown all out of >>proportion and over-saturated by hypesters who have NO CLUE what they're >>talking about. >> >> > you're probbaly partialy right about that, i've seen some quite lame xml > stuff considering the extreme verbosity of that kind of structure.. > anyways i guess the main idea with xml was to build a serious > replacement for our current html.. And considering your opinion above i > guess you must think quite the same thing of html, right ? I like HTML okay for what it was designed to be, and what it still does quite nicely... which is not what a lot of Designers seem to think it should be able to do, and they're going to force it to do, no matter how inappropriate. I hate CSS for its abject failure to be usable in consistent ways across browsers, major holes in its feature-set, and even more hype than XML ever got. Maybe some day this will all be fixed, and CSS will be "Good" It at least has potential for massive good, unlike XML, which was a limited tool for specific situations, at best. > but what i was merely pointing out in my first email was that php > seriously lacks a solid xmldom library.. I've used xml to do many many > things including some fancy ones, using various languages and never had > to scratch my head trying to understand what was going on, like what > happens here with php xmldom test.. Feel free to fix up any of the three XML engines in PHP, or add yet another one that's better. :-) > maybe if you had a more reliable xmldom in php then you'd use it more > often and find out about the ease of use it can provide sometimes.. I never had a problem with the XML parser reliability... Only with the sheer volume and complexity of code I would have had to type to do something incredibly simple and stupid. Course, I wasn't ever trying to shove multi-byte multi-lingual CDATA around either. :-) That said, I still believe http://php.net/explode and http://php.net/fopen are the way to go if you want to get this done in an efficient and maintenance-free way. -- Like Music? http://l-i-e.com/artists.htm -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
