World: r3wp

FYI, I have set 2 ppl working on an implementation of XPath into 
our XML function lib (temporary called "EasyXML"). Basically, we'll 
have 5 functions encapsulated into a context: 'load-xml file!, 'save-xml 
file!, 'get-data path! or block!, 'set-attribute string!, 'set-content 
string!

so you use rebol oficially at your work? That is nice. So far I used 
it only for few small utils here ...

Since 2000, exclusively REBOL work! But I do not know how long I 
will be able to stand the position, because, despite the great results, 
we got a lot of opposition (not a standard, too cheap, no future, 
en so on...) :(

well, try to keep up your good work. What is standard anyway? Or 
just make some calculation, how using different technology makes 
process more complicated/expensive (unless your opponents don't use 
other open-source technology, e.g. python) ... the bad thing is, 
e.g. here in our company, that the price is not always deciding factor. 
RT does wery bad job here. Our managers want to read some success 
stories, want to see list of other customers who do use such technology 
.... some case studies etc. Maybe simply Europe uses different kind 
of logic than US.

it is simply about feeling safe, so that IT manager can be sure and 
tell himself - look, someone other uses it too ....

Yes, they want to be able to look forward. And REBOL stays "risky" 
in their critical eyes :-)

But we are Off topic here :-) Shouldn't we move to the "Chat" group 
?

Do what other people say - tell them you're using C :)

What happens if the ask for a code review?

C source for Rebol is closed.

But the cosomter may ask to see the code. If you say your code is 
C. Then you are trapped?

C++ is a domain specific language which is then converted to C.  
Is there a difference?

I can do a code review. And C++ is compilable by any standard compiler.

C++ is now a language that is directly compilable. It doesn't go 
thru a translation to C.

I guess you could then drag out dockimbels R# compiler

customers usually don't want to see a code ;-) And it is same like 
we coded with CA-VO ... we bought a library and did not care for 
its internals, if things worked ....:-)

Pekr. I agree. But  believe in the politics of truth instead of deception.

Better let the customer know what he is getting up front. Even if 
it is hards or sell the solution as closed-source.

With a support contract.

How hard would it be to write a C to Rebol translator ?

Do you want Rebol to run C code?

No... just thinking about an upcoming code review :)

BTW. When are you releasing your medical application? I guess is 
going to be open-source due to GPL licensing issues ;-)

It's being continually released all the time.

up to 0.0.70 now.

I mean the src code?

oh... well, I may have to backtrack on that .. it could be dangerous 
to release the source code while LNS doesn't have a way to restrict 
access to functions.

At present I fudge it by asking initiators to send a userid with 
each request so I can determine their rights.

But if someone had the source, they can pretend to be an administrator, 
and start to damage my data :(

So, when are you guys going to complete LNS ??

Nope. There is a way around this. Without your fudge.

Complete LNS when we have the final spec.

Well, I would like to know as otherwise it's very insecure at present 
:(

(Continued in the !Beer group...)

look at Technews - E4X for Javascript - I like the simplicity they 
integrated it into the language ....

We should choose the way of how we integrate it into rebol - SAX, 
DOM, other ...

Doing my first steps with REBOL I tried to do something with XML

(reading/eventually modifing/writing). I looked for some scripts 
helping
me to do this and found:

1. xml2rebxml/rebxml2xml:
    I got the following problems:
    - missing/loosing comments
    - missing/loosing elements - that's realy serious
    my steps were:
      my-doc: xml2rebxml read %simple.xml
      write %simple2.xml rebxml2xml my-doc


    The second documents finishes outputting elements after some comment
    block in
     the source xml doc.

 2. xml-parse/xml-object:

     The versions I found on the reb library didn't work, I used some

     older versions from rebXR-1.3.0, I've got my objects, but it would 
     be

     nice to have a third module like xml-write to get the object tree
     back to xml. Is somebody developing something like this?

 3. mt.r:

     I tried to figure out how it works. Basically I can write some XML

     based on a REBOL block but I couldn't figure out how to define the

     rules about elements and attributes. Where can I find an example

     about writing for instance svg with mt.r, how looks the coresponding
     REBOL block and the rules for svg?


Where can I find more about xml and REBOL, I think it would be very 
nice
to have some REBOL scripts, doing things like 
   some-elem: xml-create [ elem "foo" namespace "myns" attribs [
                                     bar "something"
                                     xyz "123"]
                                     ]
   xml-modify [ elem another-elem append some-elem ]
and finally
   xml-write %mynewxml.xml my-doc


Is somebody developing something like this with REBOL? Some scripts 
giving

me the same comfort in REBOL like maybe XOM (http://www.xom.nu) is 
giving
for XML in Java. Of course done with some nice REBOL dialects?

What is the above mentioned "EasyXML" - is it available for use/testing?

Thank you for any tips, carsten

One more thing about XOM: E.R Harold has collected a lot of test 
XML files with many sophisticated XML things that can happen regarding 
to the XML 1.0 specs.

Carsten, xml2rebxml should be able to handle comments. Are you sure, 
your simple.xml is valid xml?

By "handle", I mean parse them, but comments ain't in the output. 
The script shouldn't stop for valid XML input.

I played around with some shorter XML document, to figure out, how 
it works - my REBOL experiences are from last week, so maybe I'm 
doing something wrong. The comments will be parsed and the block 
looks also complete but during writing it stops after an element 
that is followed by some comments. So far as  I have seen these comments 
are left out in the block but there are a lot of whitespaces between 
the last printed element and the next missing element.

Carsten, yes, I get the same problem here. I'll look into it.

cool, thank you for your time!

Carsten, ok I found a bug related to multiple comments after each 
other. Get fixed script here: http://home.tiscali.dk/john.niclasen/rebxml/xml2rebxml.r

Carsten, the script still strip comments. Do you need the comments 
to be lead through to the output? (I'm a bit in two minds about, 
how it should work.)

I've uploaded the script to the library.

taken from ML - http://www.xom.nu

I will try the new xml2rebxml.r, I think it would be nice to preserve 
the comments. If somebody writes xml in a text editor and makes some 
annotations, so it its nice, if he gets these comments back after 
processing the files with some other (REBOL) tool. But this feature 
has some lower priority.
I found some more thing in xml2rebxml.r, only the entities
      replace/all att-data ">" #">"
      replace/all att-data "&lt;" #"<"
      replace/all att-data "&amp;" #"&"
will be replaced,  the other two are missed, I think:
      replace/all att-data "&quot;" #"^""
      replace/all att-data "&apos;" #"'"

at xom.nu, you can find various articles too ...

What is wrong with XML apis - http://www.artima.com/intv/xmlapis.html