Need help on automating webpage operations

Could anybody please guide me in automating web page operation using Perl script.

Thanks,
Saravanan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 12:30 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Perl-XML Digest, Vol 74, Issue 8

Send Perl-XML mailing list submissions to
	[email protected]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/listinfo/perl-xml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	[email protected]

You can reach the person managing the list at
	[email protected]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Perl-XML digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Perl XML::Parser failing tests (mirod)
   2. Re: Perl XML::Parser failing tests (Robin Berjon)
   3. Re: Perl XML::Parser failing tests (mirod)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:23:50 +0100
From: mirod <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Perl XML::Parser failing tests
To: "[email protected]"
	<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2010, at 23:39 , Jenda Krynicky wrote:

>> I also know that XML::Twig, which is a fairly popular module is still based
>> on XML::Parser, XML::Rules still uses XML::Parser::Expat, XML::Simple can
>> use both XML::Parser and some SAX2 parser, ...
> 
> Hmmm, I thought Michel had updated Twig not to require XML::Parser anymore
> but it seems that I was wrong. Michel: is there anything specific that you
> get only from XML::Parser that you need? I must say I'm surprised something
> newer like XML::Rules is using the old interface!

There is little point (and a lot of work!) in removing XML::Twig's dependency on 
XML::Parser.

>> SAX itself has a plethora of modules, not based on a SAX parser, but 
>> actually being a SAX parser which confuses the issue.
> 
> I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here :)
> 
>> Shame there is no statistics about the usage of modules, I would really
>> like to know what actually is the usage of XML::Parser/expat versus
>> SAX/(libxml or whatever). Though I do bet there will be a lot more new,
>> single user, modules built on top of the newest and greatest SAX2.
> 
> My bet is that for the most part people are using XML::LibXML (but not the
> SAX bits).

My impression, based on talking to people, following the main perl forums and 
generally whatever gets written anywhere about XML::Twig, is that serious people 
that do XML for a living, use XML::LibXML. The rest, people who need to 
Get-Shit-Done, use whatever, mostly XML::Simple.

XML::Twig niche would be serious people who don't specialize in XML, people who 
batch process huge amounts of data plus a decent number of very enthusiastic 
users who just like the interface.

There also seems to be a surprising amount of questions on various forums about 
XML::XPath and XML::DOM. There is also a fair number of answers with XML::Rules 
based solutions (mostly from a single poster ;--) although I have no idea how 
many people actually use it (not that I have any idea about the others mind you, 
I should generate a graph though).

Stackoverflow tags, around page 488 at the moment, shows 11 questions tagged 
xmlsimple or xml-simple, 2 for xml-dom and 8 for xml-twig. Estimating the amount 
of XML::LibXML questions is more tricky because there was no xml-libxml tag, so 
I created it, feel free to tag questions appropriately (I have no doubt that an 
xml-rules tag will also soon be available ;--) A quick search on perl and libxml 
shows that there are maybe 20 or 30 of them.

In short, I understand that Robin doesn't like XML::Parser (and he knows I don't 
like SAX!), but it is still useful, and it should still be maintained.

-- 
mirod





------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:46:31 +0100
From: Robin Berjon <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Perl XML::Parser failing tests
To: mirod <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]"
	<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Mar 23, 2010, at 12:23 , mirod wrote:
> In short, I understand that Robin doesn't like XML::Parser (and he knows I don't 
> like SAX!), but it is still useful, and it should still be maintained.

Well, given that people seem to still use it in some places, that we've received two build errors in a short time, and that it hasn't been touched in three years, thanks for volunteering Michel :)

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/





------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:21:31 +0100
From: mirod <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Perl XML::Parser failing tests
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2010, at 12:23 , mirod wrote:
>> In short, I understand that Robin doesn't like XML::Parser (and he knows I
>> don't like SAX!), but it is still useful, and it should still be
>> maintained.
> 
> Well, given that people seem to still use it in some places, that we've
> received two build errors in a short time, and that it hasn't been touched in
> three years, thanks for volunteering Michel :)

The last sentence of my email, which I deleted before sending it, mentioned the 
fact that I haven't used C in a real long time... I could probably apply patches 
though if you give me co-maintainer status.

-- 
mirod


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Perl-XML mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs


End of Perl-XML Digest, Vol 74, Issue 8
***************************************
_______________________________________________
Perl-XML mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs