Re: [libxml++] Re: Libxmlplusplus-general digest, Vol 1 #293 - 1 msg

[Stefan Seefeld <seefeld sympatico ca>]

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