Re: [Libxmlplusplus-general] newbie question: libxml++ vs. xerces-C++

[Christophe de V. <cde...@al...>]

=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Le Lundi 16 D=E9cembre 2002 20:12, Ed Hill a =E9crit :
> Hi folks,
>
> I've started converting to XML for some of my data sets (mostly X-ray
> spectra and geometry info for GPL'd scientific computing applications)
> and I was wondering if someone could provide some comments on the
> ups/downs the Xerces-C++ (http://xml.apache.org/xerces-c/index.html)
> parser versus the libxml++ parser.  I've written some demo code using
> both and, so far, I prefer the cleaner, simpler libxml++ SAX interface.
> I find the Xerces code to be a lot more confusing...

If you're looking for simplicity of use, libxml++ may be better. If you're=
=20
looking for a more complete XML parser, then Xerces is probably the best of=
=20
both.

>
> Specific questions:
>
>   1) Does (or can) libxml++ do validation while parsing?  I'm writing
>      DTDs for my data sets and would prefer a validating parser.
>

No. But I want to add DTD validation support in libxml++ in the future (I h=
ave=20
no precise delay right now, since there is more urgent things to do).

>   2) Xerces-C++ seems to use Unicode while libxml doesn't.  Should I
>      care?  Or am I missing something?

libxml does, but libxml++ does not. This is indeed one limitation of libxml=
++,=20
which should be solved one day, but we have no precise plan about this for=
=20
now.



Christophe
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAj3+6PUACgkQB+sU3TyOQjBcywCfTnn9A240k3PBAK8bqiS80TiT
pu8An1OIiRgTDZMFYjgZ/PU/Jo9vH+Ta
=3DRVoF
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----