Re: Problems with xml-parse-string

[Chong Yidong]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden> writes:

> So your argument is now that it doesn't matter how crappy the
> representation is, since we're going to teach all users of the data to
> use small accessor functions that hide the horror? Instead of assq
> we're going to use xml-find-attribute?

You are overselling your case.  The representation you're pushing also
has its complexities.  For instance, you need to mangle symbol names to
get the symbols representing XML attributes.

I can see where your arguments are coming from, but I don't think enough
has been brought to the table to justify switching to a non-standard and
non-backward-compatible internal format.