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

[Murray Cumming <murrayc usa net>]

Stefan Seefeld <seefeld sympatico ca> wrote:
> Murray Cumming wrote:
> 
> > I am not being GNOME-centric. Glib::ustring will be available for general
> > non-GTK, non-GNOME use.
> 
> Isn't Glib a C++ wrapper around the C library 'glib' ? I don't see any
> reason why any C++ project should need to use that. I can see why C
> people try to reinvent OO techniques instead of learning C++. But
> anyways, let's not get more off-topic.

Is there any other unicode string class that isn't tied to a GUI toolkit? If
you agree that it's nice for the glibmm authors to provide a utf8 string class
do you think it would be better to reimplement it in C or to use the existing
implementation in glib?

You don't need to repeat your point about not using any specific unicode
string class at all. That is the whole point of this discussion after all.

> I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just suggesting that your
> preference for using Glib::ustring for libxml++ is due to your bias.

And I have repeatedly said that
1. I would prefer to use a utf8 string class.
2. Glib::ustring is a utf8 string class and I know of no others that are
available.

Where is the GNOME bias in that? 

> And I called you 'GNOME centric' because you have been telling me again
> and again that you can't imagine anybody wanting to use any unicode
> library but Glib.

I am inviting people to tell me what they are using? You have this bizarre
habit of interpreting questions as statements. It's unhelpful.

> Anyways, this thread has already taken way too much time. Time I should
> be spending on more productive work. I have made my point, now you as
> the self-acclaimed 'lead developer' have to choose the direction for
> libxml++. Good luck !

I have spent all this time replying to you and now you complain about it?


Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net
www.murrayc.com