[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs py_lxml

[Sebastian Kayser]

Philip Brown wrote on 01.03.2010 21:33:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Sebastian Kayser <skayser at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Sebastian Kayser wrote on 01.03.2010 21:10:
>>> The "easier to use" was my interpretation, probably some people might
>>> find it easier to do this stuff with the native libxml2 python bindings.
> 
> Makes sense to me.
> 
> fine with me. but
>>> The "pythonic" in the current description is what lxml is in fact about,
>>> provide bindings for python that feel like python.
>>> ....
>>  What is Pythonic?
>>  http://faassen.n--tree.net/blog/view/weblog/200.....
> 
> 
> If something needs a web reference to explain it, it is probably not
> the best choice to use in a single-line description meant for general
> users to read :-}
> 
> 
> How about this:
> 
> 
> NAME=py_lxml - libxml2 binding with cleaner python syntax than py_libxml2

I see your point in helping the user to sort out what exactly py_lxml
might be for when there is already py_libxml2.

The problem I am having with this wording is that it puts a comparative,
negative verdict upon py_libxml2. I would rather have the user make his
own judgments.

Can you think of something concise that creates a relationship to
py_libxml2 without depreciating it at the same time?

Sebastian