From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-24 12:04:52
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> 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
Right. FWIW, I think Dan Nuffer's XML parser is not a hack.
The spirit XML parsers implement the full XML grammar.
-- 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