From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-27 17:18:20
Péter Szilágyi wrote:
>> 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 would think different XML APIs can co-exist (possibly sharing implementation).
Some use cases really only require XML streaming / parsing, and such users
shouldn't be forced to see a full DOM API. I think the way the XML specs are
defined allows us to make such APIs rather modular / orthogonal.
> 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).
Right. But, as you have pointed out in your previous mail, only fixed-sized
encodings can be used like this. Often you don't need / want random access,
making UTF-8 a better choice.
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk