From: Péter Szilágyi (peterke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-27 16:47:19
> That's a good question. Also, it would still be a parser only, as opposed
> to any in-memory representation (tree ?) with assorted APIs. Such a parser
> may be sufficient if all you have in mind is an XMLReader-like API, but
> it surely isn't if what you want is a DOM, with XPath-based lookup,
> validation, etc., etc.
In my opinion in order for an XML library to be useful, it should support
parsing and generating XML documents, in-memory representation, construction
and modification support, as well as at least basic validation.
I think you are missing the point. It's not an argument for any particular
> encoding. Rather, the point is that there is no pre-defined mapping
> Unicode (or other) encoding and any C++ character type.
I understand this, I was just thinking about how the different encodings
could be represented as wstrings while keeping the string's base
functionality (one wchat_t truly one char, not just part of it).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk