Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Marcin Kalicinski wrote:
I was not aware that includes are connected with namespaces. I think my XML knowledge is not does not stand up to the need. I based my parser on Dan Nuffer's sources, and hope he got the corner cases right :-) On the other hand, if boost gets its XML library, my XML parser will be nothing more but obsolete, so it may not be worthwhile to spend too much time on it at the moment.
There are a number of applications that just needs a simple xml-parser. For example, most of the xml-files in my company are simple recursive structures with a single id="42" attribute here and there. But that id could easily be put into a tag instead.
I have not yet understood why xml needs to be so sophisticated, and will probably continue to ignore all those wierd an advanced xml-features.
Anyway, Marcin's parser also builds a ptree which is a great benefit compared to the DOM parsers I have seen.
Just make sure it is well-defined what subset of xml that can be parsed and what cannot. In spirit of the library, anything that is not really easy and simple to support, should be rejected.
I agree. I have the same observation. Most practical uses of XML are actually very simple. I too do not understand why XML needs to be so sophisticated. In light of this discussion and with the development of Spirit-2, I'm interested to write such a "minimal" XML parser. What I would like to know is, what that well-defined subset of xml is (as simple as it can get but still practically useful). I bet the result would be a lean-mean machine. (I'm cross posting to the spirit list) Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net