Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++

[Kong Bhat]

With XML becoming the de facto data description standard, I am
extremely surprised that there is no movement towards standardizing an
xml library API for use with C and C++. Personally I have been
working with libxml2 (www.gnome.org) for a while now, and I am quite
comfortable with it. I believe that libxml2 is a good start, but I
think a slimmer version of libxml2 should be standardized.
Any thoughts?

Regards,
Kong Posh

[Claudio Puviani]

[cross-posts removed]

"Kong Bhat" <kb***@sta.sams ung.com> wrote

With XML becoming the de facto data description
standard, I am extremely surprised that there is no
movement towards standardizing an xml library API
for use with C and C++.
Firstly, this is the wrong forum to propose changes to the standard. You
want comp.std.c++ for that. This newsgroup deals with C++ as it's specified,
not as random individuals would see it changed.
Personally I have been working with libxml2
(www.gnome.org) for a while now, and I am quite
comfortable with it.
So what's your problem? If it does what you need, just keep using it.
I believe that libxml2 is a good start, but I think a
slimmer version of libxml2 should be standardized.

There's no need for it. C++ has no ties to XML and doesn't prevent you from
using a library of your choice. You don't arbitrarily add libraries to a
language standard on the flimsy basis that a lot of people use a particular
feature. TCP/IP is far more prevalent than XML, yet it would be absurd to
add sockets to the standard C++ library. Database access is even more
prevalent. Would you have some ODBC-like library also be added to the
standard? The C++ standard committee has enough on their hands without
tracking changes to unrelated standards. Let whoever is responsible for the
XML standard provide standard bindings for other languages if they have free
time on their hands.

Claudio Puviani

[Claudio Puviani]

[cross-posts removed]

"Kong Bhat" <kb***@sta.sams ung.com> wrote

With XML becoming the de facto data description
standard, I am extremely surprised that there is no
movement towards standardizing an xml library API
for use with C and C++.
Firstly, this is the wrong forum to propose changes to the standard. You
want comp.std.c++ for that. This newsgroup deals with C++ as it's specified,
not as random individuals would see it changed.
Personally I have been working with libxml2
(www.gnome.org) for a while now, and I am quite
comfortable with it.
So what's your problem? If it does what you need, just keep using it.
I believe that libxml2 is a good start, but I think a
slimmer version of libxml2 should be standardized.

There's no need for it. C++ has no ties to XML and doesn't prevent you from
using a library of your choice. You don't arbitrarily add libraries to a
language standard on the flimsy basis that a lot of people use a particular
feature. TCP/IP is far more prevalent than XML, yet it would be absurd to
add sockets to the standard C++ library. Database access is even more
prevalent. Would you have some ODBC-like library also be added to the
standard? The C++ standard committee has enough on their hands without
tracking changes to unrelated standards. Let whoever is responsible for the
XML standard provide standard bindings for other languages if they have free
time on their hands.

Claudio Puviani

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Kong Bhat wrote:

With XML becoming the de facto data description standard,
I am extremely surprised that there is no movement
toward standardizing an xml library API for use with C and C++.
Personally, I have been working with libxml2 (www.gnome.org)
for a while now and I am quite comfortable with it.
I believe that libxml2 is a good start
but I think a slimmer version of libxml2 should be standardized.

How is this on-topic in comp.std.c, comp.lang.c or comp.lang.c++?
Do you want to make this library part of the standard library?
If so, is there a compelling reason why this library must be implemented
by the compiler developer and not a third party vendor?
If the library can be implemented by third party vendors, then
a standard separate from the C/C++ standards may be a better option.

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Kong Bhat wrote:

With XML becoming the de facto data description standard,
I am extremely surprised that there is no movement
toward standardizing an xml library API for use with C and C++.
Personally, I have been working with libxml2 (www.gnome.org)
for a while now and I am quite comfortable with it.
I believe that libxml2 is a good start
but I think a slimmer version of libxml2 should be standardized.

How is this on-topic in comp.std.c, comp.lang.c or comp.lang.c++?
Do you want to make this library part of the standard library?
If so, is there a compelling reason why this library must be implemented
by the compiler developer and not a third party vendor?
If the library can be implemented by third party vendors, then
a standard separate from the C/C++ standards may be a better option.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <8d************ **************@ posting.google. com>,
Kong Bhat <kb***@sta.sams ung.com> wrote:

With XML becoming the de facto data description standard, I am
extremely surprised that there is no movement towards standardizing an
xml library API for use with C and C++.

It would not be appropriate to make this part of the C standard.
There are a million things that should be standardized first:
we don't even have lists or hash tables!

-- Richard

[Richard Tobin]

In article <8d************ **************@ posting.google. com>,
Kong Bhat <kb***@sta.sams ung.com> wrote:

With XML becoming the de facto data description standard, I am
extremely surprised that there is no movement towards standardizing an
xml library API for use with C and C++.

It would not be appropriate to make this part of the C standard.
There are a million things that should be standardized first:
we don't even have lists or hash tables!

-- Richard

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

Kong Bhat wrote:

... I think a slimmer version of libxml2 should be standardized.

"Feel free."

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

Kong Bhat wrote:

... I think a slimmer version of libxml2 should be standardized.

"Feel free."

[Steven T. Hatton]

Claudio Puviani wrote:

[cross-posts removed]

"Kong Bhat" <kb***@sta.sams ung.com> wrote

With XML becoming the de facto data description
standard, I am extremely surprised that there is no
movement towards standardizing an xml library API
for use with C and C++.
Firstly, this is the wrong forum to propose changes to the standard.

This really sounds more like a w3c issue. http://www.w3.org/DOM/ . I will
suggest there are two possible areas where a standard C++ API would be
worth pursuing. DOM, and SAX. I don't use SAX directly, so I have little
to say about it. As regards the DOM, there is an abstract IDL binding which
may, for all intents and purposes already define a C++ binding. I'm not an
expert in IDL, but I'm pretty sure it originated in the C++ world.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-DOM-Lev...finitions.html

Apache has this proposal out:

http://xml.apache.org/xerces-c/Apach...BindingL3.html

There's no need for it. C++ has no ties to XML and doesn't prevent you
from using a library of your choice. You don't arbitrarily add libraries
to a language standard on the flimsy basis that a lot of people use a
particular feature. TCP/IP is far more prevalent than XML, yet it would be
absurd to add sockets to the standard C++ library. Database access is even
more prevalent. Would you have some ODBC-like library also be added to the
standard? The C++ standard committee has enough on their hands without
tracking changes to unrelated standards. Let whoever is responsible for
the XML standard provide standard bindings for other languages if they
have free time on their hands.

I believe the goal is worthwhile. It is simply not a core language issue.
It's a w3c issue.
--
p->m == (*p).m == p[0].m
http://www.kdevelop.org
http://www.suse.com
http://www.mozilla.org