Date: 2001-10-02 12:41:25
FYI in my personal link farm, there are 4 xml parsers written
bsd. SAX-ish. no DOM. non-validating.
GPL. no DOM. validating or not.
dual W3C/LGPL. SAX-ish (modeled after expat), also has DOM.
validating or not.
apache license. DOM and SAX. validating.
there are oodles in java, of course, and number of
other half-way efforts in C/C++.
btw, i wouldn't want to use any xml parser that doesn't have
an automated test set, and that doesn't attempt to be conformant.
writing a buggy, nonconformant xml parser is indeed
something any of us can do in an afternoon.
RXP for example does take testing fairly seriously:
though it is GPL.
all of the above parsers are in C or bastardized C++, which
may (in addition to license issues) limit their reusability.
speaking of conformance testing, there is:
David Brownell started. good initial effort, now seems inactive.
unclear relationship to w3c and oasis efforts.
i can't tell how these are related to each other, though
they claim that w3c and NIST are working together.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk