Date: 2007-07-16 02:03:33
> > To me, type safety is a more specific problem than what the XML
> > standard deals with.
> Indeed, and so, for the purpose of keeping this XML proposal
> on track, I'd suggest to disregard any type safety issues
> that don't directly derive from XML well-formedness.
I don't understand why one of C++ main feature - type safety - should
not be an option for boost.xml?
> validation (no matter what schema is used to define the
> document type, dtd, relaxng, xsd, etc.) is an add-on, and a
> runtime mechanism.
Why shouldn't parts of validation be done by the compile process?
Doing correctness checks during compile time is what you can read in
books from Sutter, Meyers, Alexandrescu etc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk