From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-24 10:51:33
Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>> 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
> not need.
Sorry for not being clear about what I mean with 'full XML support'.
The XML specs are very modular. I'm definitely not talking about things
such as validation. However, some aspects are already part of XML
parsing (entity lookup, for example), or are quite handy to have
(xinclude processing, say).
But even if we are only talking about basic XML parsing the parser
has to be aware of quite a lot of aspects to be considered
standard-conformant. I don't think that can be hacked together
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk