From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-24 10:34:29
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Daniel Wesslén wrote:
>> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>>> 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.
> I agree. In fact, I think writing an 'xml parser' that doesn't provide
> full XML support is asking for trouble. Before long people will want to
> use XML features not supported by such a stripped-down parser, and will
> get confused if things break.
When will that "before long" point be? The argument is that in
most(?) cases, it will be never. My problem with a full blown
XML parser is that we pay for a lot of the features that we do
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk