On 10/30/06, Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl@getdesigned.at> wrote:
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
(And I agree, validation should be handled independently, so users don't have to pay for things they don't use.)
Little detail: the XML specification actually requires that validation is at user discretion. I plan to implement it as a filter. But even then it must always be present: the spec requires quite a few things from it.
As it is right now, I'd prefer using #1. I am interested in seeing a basic example (in code) of how using your #3 would work. If it is #1, it would be trivial to make a validating_reader that inherits from the basic reader and only wraps next().
Sebastian Redl _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Cory Nelson http://www.int64.org