Re: [xml] libxml2 behaves differently on actual <attribute> vs attribute inserted using <ref>

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 12:26:50PM -0500, Jatayu wrote:
> Hi Daniel.
>
> Done. I've submitted a ticket on bugzilla.
>
> By the way, I would be interested to hear your thought
> on the extent/level of the RNG support in libxml2.
>
> (brief comment/thought is fine :)
>
> My current project requires the use of xml and I appreciate the fact that
> there's
> a tool/library like libxml2 out there. I'm still oscillating between XSD vs
> RNG,
> but leaning more toward RNG.
>
> Would you say that RNG support in libxml2 is lacking/lagging compared to its
> XSD
> support? (in light of previous post from Belgabor?)

  Fair question, that deserves a fair answer.

  While RNG support may have a few bugs (and a problem providing a good
diagnostic on validation errors mostly due to the kind of algorithm used)
analyzing them means looking at libxml2 code only. For XSD you usually end
up looking at the spec, not understanding it, and then flip a coin (or
run test on others XSD validators) to try to pick an answer. XSD implementation
in libxml2 is where Kasimier had it when he left the project, I can
occasionnaly fix bugs but you have far less garantee with XSD.

  I would suggest to invest in RNG because it has a clear semantic, 
which will keep you sane over the years and over the various implementations.

Daniel

-- 
Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/
Daniel Veillard      | virtualization library  http://libvirt.org/
veillard redhat com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine  http://rpmfind.net/