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

[Murray Cumming <murrayc usa net>]

Stefan Seefeld <seefeld sympatico ca> wrote:
> 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.

Sure. I'm just talking aloud.

> > 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.

Yes, though I think the API that's actually used is a bit simpler even for
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 ?

It's just one of many considerations, and maybe not the most important. I do
expect people to understand an API via the API's documentation rather than the
header files, and I do know that it's unrealistic to expect hand-written
documentation to be accurate or even up-to-date.

Hopefully it is clear that I am listing pros and cons and points in general. I
am saying that Doxygen CAN do this for us. That's good. That's not a reason
NOT to use this API. Please calm down.

> > 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).

OK. May I ask, please, if it's OK, if it wouldn't upset you terribly, why you
aren't using the XML parser that's included in Qt? It's a question not any
kind of statement. I know nothing about Qt's XML parser.


Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net
www.murrayc.com