From: Felipe Magno de Almeida (felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-11 12:37:56
On 7/11/07, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
> Do you think the above syntax would replace the procedural API, or merely
> complement it ? While I can see the appeal of such a declarative approach,
> I'm not sure how well that fits into a broader picture where users want to
> use the same API not only to build a document, but traverse it, remove and
> replace elements, etc.
FWIW, if a declarative syntax were available, I wouldn't find much
need for a procedural API, except where it weren't possible at all.
Pursuing a very easy-to-use syntax should be the goal, IMHO, in a XML
> To me, right now, what you propose looks mostly like syntactic sugar, which
> can be worked on as a refinement once the basic (and common) API is established.
It is mostly syntactic sugar that you're defining. Anyone can use
libxml2 directly if syntactic sugar isn't needed or desirable.
-- Felipe Magno de Almeida
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk