Andreas Raab wrote:
> Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>> For this and others packages which should have his own place and was 
>> in  the
>> "up to date" .image, I ask for having a consensus and put the best one.
> 
> As a straw-man proposal, I think we should merge the most up-to-date 
> upstream version. There will always be a few downstream modifications 
> but it would be good to try to stay up-to-date with the most recent 
> upstream version.

+1

Problem with this patch is that it breaks backwards compatibility for 
the XML parser by introducing a non standard dictionary protocol.

Michael