From: Daniel Wesslén (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-24 10:12:40
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> Daniel Wesslén wrote:
>> Given that property_tree isn't meant to be a XML library as such, I
>> don't think there is much need. I agree that is should be clearly
>> documented which features of XML the parser can handle. After that is
>> done, there is no reason not to add features that can fit in the tree.
>> I was simply suggesting that when we get a full-featured parser, then
>> that one should be used for property_tree as well, to support as much of
>> XML as possible within the constraints of what's feasible to store in
>> the ptree.
> Ok, I see. But some users might prefer the current parser because it is
> more efficient when it doesn't need to worry about advanced features.
> Those users would then pay when the parser is replaced.
Ah. In that case I agree with you.
I'd like to have both available, but at some point a line has to be
drawn, and that place may well be before adding two XML parsers to
ptree. Writing a translator from a W3DOM or other XML representation to
a ptree should be trivial in any case, and could be provided as an
example if nothing else.
-- Daniel Wesslén
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk