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

[Stefan Seefeld <seefeld sympatico ca>]

Murray Cumming wrote:

> 1. I don't think _many_ people want to use libxml++ with a pre-existing
> Unicode string class other than Glib::ustring.

why are you so GNOME [*] centric ? There is more to life than that !

> 2. I'm not sure that it's worth giving up the benefits of libxml++ being a
> shared library just so that people don't have to write utility functions to
> convert from Glib::ustring to their own string classes.

no, the issue is a bit more involved. Of course, having to convert
between two unicode string types is a major annoyance, especially if we
are talking about performance.
But another issue is a new (and totally unnecessary) dependency to
unrelated libraries such as glibmm (and all the dependencies that will
drag in) !

> In particular I'm
> scared of asking people to recompile their apps just to get minor libxml++
> implementation fixes.

I understand. But I still think this is a non-issue, as I don't expect
libxml++ to contain much code. It's just a wrapper around libxml2 after
all. But then, may be this discussion just reveals a major difference in
our respective vision of what libxml++ should be all about. I can see
you not wanting to drag in the drawbacks genericity means to you if all
you ever want to do with libxml++ is inside GNOME projects. But then
*please* make it clear that libxml++ is intended for a restricted
audience.

Regards,
		Stefan

[*] please note that I'm using 'GNOME' here broadly for libraries such
    as glib, gtk, and everything surrounding them.