From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-01 14:40:56
Robert Ramey wrote:
> Boris Kolpackov wrote:
>> My uneducated guess is that "spirit-based XML grammar" is not a
>> conforming XML parser.
> Not relevant.
> The question isn't which features the particular XML parser included
> with spirite supports. Any missing features could be added to the
> grammar without too much problem - that's the appeal of using
> a grammar driven approach.
That is also the appeal of "Let's reinvent it !". There are XML
parsers out there that support all the above. Why not use them ?
>> The next question is how much effort it will take to fix it up
> Much less than hand coding yet another xml parser.
True. But much more than using an existent (compliant) parser.
>> and whether it will still be as robust, maintainable,
> A parser generated from a formal grammar is going to be
> much more robust, and maintainable. The grammar can
> be vrified independently of the implementaion.
The XML 'grammar' is in fact the most trivial aspect of it.
>> The reason why you had good results with serialization library
>> is because you control both production and consumption of the
>> instances so you can easily restrict yourself to a subset of XML.
> The reason I had good results with spirit with serialization library
> is that it's good, robust, well designed and well documented code.
> I built on that.
What features of XML are you using ? External subsets or any other
URLs that need to be looked up ? XInclude support to make documents
modular ? Etc., etc.
>> Once you need to process *any* valid XML things get a lot more
> Which is even more reason to avoid a hand coded parser.
I think you (still) totally miss the point. Sorry.
-- ...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