2009/10/20 Michael Rueger <m.rueger at acm.org>:
> 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
>
>

Yes, this is experimental, don't commit in another repository by now !

Nicolas