From: Stefan S. <se...@sy...> - 2004-08-16 23:09:58
|
Daniel Veillard wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:07:43AM -0400, Kurt M. Brown wrote: > >>I agree that a generic C++ API for xml would be useful; one the closely >>matches: http://www.w3.org/DOM/. > > > which totally sucks because it mandates UTF-16 strings. > There is a good reason I didn't tried to implement "real" DOM in > libxml2, I woudn't have been conformant anyway because there i no > way I would have agreed to constantly recode UTF-16 to UTF-8 and > back. C++ API for DOM is defined as the output of C++ header generator > on the CORBA bindings, eek :-( is it ? I'v never seen anything about an officially endorsed C++ xml API (DOM, SAX, whatever). In any case, I believe on the boost list the consensus was not to rewrite the java-like APIs in C++ but rather use C++ specific idioms as much as possible. While I would be satisfied in an implementation that wraps libxml2, boost people obviously want to be sure that an API that gets accepted is implementable by other backends, too. Regards, Stefan |