Boost logo

Boost :

From: Damien Fisher (dfisher_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-26 09:42:29

----- Original Message -----
From: <dietmar_kuehl_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 12:12 AM
Subject: [boost] XML-parser interface (Was: Unicode in C++)

> --- In boost_at_y..., "Damien Fisher" <dfisher_at_u...> wrote:
> > Perhaps it would be a good idea to ignore unicode until boost
> > finalizes its solution on the matter.
> I wouldn't call it "ignoring" it but rather: Just don't bind the
> Boost XML parser to a particular character type. Initially, we can
> just use it with 'char' (which, BTW, makes debugging more
> convenient unless you are using only Unicode aware tools) and at
> any time instantiate it with appropriate other character types, eg.
> 'wchar_t' and/or 'ucchar_t'.

That's exactly what I meant. Obviously I am going to have to be a little
clearer in how I express myself, it seems you are misunderstanding a lot of
what I say (my fault entirely). Sorry about that.

> > So the next
> > question would be: do we start with W3C interfaces first
> You cannot implement a fast interface in terms of a slow one and
> retain the efficiency. This should sufficiently answer this
> question...

Sure, that's true enough. But I wouldn't expect that exposing a DOM
interface precludes providing an efficient separate interface later on, if
it is done with this goal in mind. I guess it comes down to whether people
want a nice, familiar, portable C++ XML parser in Boost (to begin with), or
an elegant, portable C++ XML parser in Boost. Down the track I don't see
why both couldn't be provided, it just seems that the former could be
brought up to scratch far more quickly, and with far less debate, than the
latter (and the latter can be debated while the former is being completed
:) ).

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at