Subject: Re: [boost] [GSOC] XML library of Boost
From: Simon Siemens (simon.siemens_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-01 03:05:50
Please also look at
As an XML document has a tree structure, I guess an XML DOM interface
should implement a C++ tree container interface. The above paper
suggests some important principles for tree-like containers in C++.
Maybe someone could comment on the state of this paper.
Am Montag, den 29.04.2013, 23:32 +0200 schrieb Daniel Pfeifer:
> 2013/4/28 Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>
> > IMHO, support for SAX is also mandatory. I would even say that SAX should
> > be
> > the first and the primary thing to be implemented in Boost.XML, as DOM can
> > be
> > added later on top of it if the time for GSOC allows.
> Personally, I find pull-parsing much more convenient than SAX.
> But personal preferences put aside, there are generally three approaches to
> parsing XML:
> 1. DOM
> 2. SAX, push-parsing, callback-driven
> 3. StAX, pull-parsing, streamreader
> Each approach is better than the two others in some way. We need them all
> three in Boost (and then in the standard). I believe that these three
> approaches may share some code, but don't need to be based upon each other.
> You might want to look at pugixml , a "Light-weight, simple and fast XML
> parser for C++ with XPath support". There might be a reason why it is not
> built on SAX.
> Concerning pull-parsing, llamaxml  and the streamreader from Qt  and
> may be of interest.
> I also wrote a simple stream reader (and writer) that you might find
> helpful .
>  http://pugixml.org/
>  http://llamaxml.berlios.de/
>  http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.8/qxmlstreamreader.html
>  https://github.com/purpleKarrot/xml
> cheers, Daniel
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk