From: Jesse Jones (jesjones_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-02 19:37:59
At 5:41 PM +0000 10/2/01, mda_at_[hidden] wrote:
>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++.
The Whisper application framework
(<http://sourceforge.net/projects/whisper2/> ) includes a validating
XML 1.0 parser. It's not a whiz-bang STLish design, but it is full
bore C++ and better than Xerces IMO.
>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.
>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.
I tested Whisper's parser using the July 12, 1999 Oasis XML
Conformance Suite working draft (not sure if there's a newer
version). There were 884 tests and 7 failures (although I think at
least three of those failures are due to buggy tests).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk