Re: [Re: [libxml++] UTF8 support]

[Stefan Seefeld <seefeld sympatico ca>]

Murray Cumming wrote:

> Yes, I said it works for std::string. However, :
> 1. Most people use std::string  rather than basic_string<>. But we could
> provide similar default typedefs in headers:

that's what I have been propagating from the start.

> 2. The interface for std::string is simpler than libxml++ for most uses,
> mostly because std::string is just one class and libxml++ is a bunch of
> classes that work together.

ok, then consider std::iostreams.

> 3. It looks like Doxygen can cope well with templates so the API might not be
> less clearly documented. GNU haven't documented basic_string yet, but here's
> an example of basic_istream:

are you serious ? Are you telling us you want to constrain an API just
because your documenting tool can't cope with more advanced techniques ?

> 4. I would like to hear about other examples other than Glib::ustring and
> QString, particularly because I doubt that anyone wants to use QString with
> libxml++. We should only solve problems that really exist. Stefan, what string
> class are you using?

as I already said, I do use Qt (at work), so I do have an interest in
using a C++ xml library that can use QString. My main Free Software
project is Fresco (http://www.fresco.org), where we have our own Unicode
library.
So I myself already have a need to support two different unicode
libs/string types. I'm sure other people have theirs. It's not because
these are not *my* problems that they don't exist (or are less real).

Regards,
		Stefan