Stefan Seefeld wrote:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
I agree. In fact, I think writing an 'xml parser' that doesn't provide full XML support is asking for trouble. Before long people will want to use XML features not supported by such a stripped-down parser, and will get confused if things break. When will that "before long" point be? The argument is that in most(?) cases, it will be never. My problem with a full blown XML parser is that we pay for a lot of the features that we do not need.
Sorry for not being clear about what I mean with 'full XML support'. The XML specs are very modular. I'm definitely not talking about things such as validation. However, some aspects are already part of XML parsing (entity lookup, for example), or are quite handy to have (xinclude processing, say). But even if we are only talking about basic XML parsing the parser has to be aware of quite a lot of aspects to be considered standard-conformant. I don't think that can be hacked together quickly.
Right. FWIW, I think Dan Nuffer's XML parser is not a hack. The spirit XML parsers implement the full XML grammar. http://spirit.sourceforge.net/repository/applications/show_contents.php Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net