From: Cory Nelson (phrosty_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-30 07:51:25
On 10/30/06, Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> > (And I agree, validation should be handled independently, so users don't
> > have to pay for things they don't use.)
> Little detail: the XML specification actually requires that validation
> is at user discretion.
> I plan to implement it as a filter. But even then it must always be
> present: the spec requires quite a few things from it.
As it is right now, I'd prefer using #1. I am interested in seeing a
basic example (in code) of how using your #3 would work.
If it is #1, it would be trivial to make a validating_reader that
inherits from the basic reader and only wraps next().
> Sebastian Redl
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Cory Nelson http://www.int64.org
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk