[boost] Re: XML interface: SAX? DOM? something else? ... and what about writing?

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
>in C/C++:
>expat expat.sourceforge.net
>    bsd. SAX-ish. no DOM. non-validating.
>RXP http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~richard/rxp.html
>    GPL. no DOM. validating or not.
>libxml http://www.xmlsoft.org
>    dual W3C/LGPL. SAX-ish (modeled after expat), also has DOM.
>    validating or not.
>xerces http://xml.apache.org
>    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.

Yep

>speaking of conformance testing, there is:
>xmlconf.sourceforge.net
>   David Brownell started. good initial effort, now seems inactive.
>   unclear relationship to w3c and oasis efforts.
>http://www.w3.org/DOM/Test/
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xml-conformance/
>   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).

   -- Jesse