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

[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

[Steven T. Hatton]

Steven T. Hatton wrote:

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.

I'm not sure what this really means, but I just found the following in the
CORBA specification, v3.0.3:

http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/04-03-12

"OMG IDL is preprocessed according to the specification of the preprocessor
in International Organization for Standardization . 1998. ISO/IEC 14882
Standard for the C++ Programming Language. Geneva: International
Organization for Standardization . The preprocessor may be implemented as a
separate process or built into the IDL compiler."

--
p->m == (*p).m == p[0].m
http://www.kdevelop.org
http://www.suse.com
http://www.mozilla.org

[Steven T. Hatton]

Steven T. Hatton wrote:

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.

I'm not sure what this really means, but I just found the following in the
CORBA specification, v3.0.3:

http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/04-03-12

"OMG IDL is preprocessed according to the specification of the preprocessor
in International Organization for Standardization . 1998. ISO/IEC 14882
Standard for the C++ Programming Language. Geneva: International
Organization for Standardization . The preprocessor may be implemented as a
separate process or built into the IDL compiler."

--
p->m == (*p).m == p[0].m
http://www.kdevelop.org
http://www.suse.com
http://www.mozilla.org

[Dietmar Kuehl]

"Steven T. Hatton" <su******@setid ava.kushan.aa> wrote:

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.

No, it did not: it originated in the C world. One stated goal of the C++
binding for CORBA was some form of compatibility to C. Although I accept
that the motives were well-intended, the resulting C++ binding is a pain
in the ass (using a much weaker term than I would have used in my native
language). This view can, of course, be attributed to ignorance about the
finer points of the C++ binding on my side.

That said, any realization of W3C's DOM in C++ using any other approach
than a liberal interpretation of their model will be useless already.
Bolting the CORBA C++ on top of this will definitely not improve the
situation - unless, of course, your goal is the creation of the slowest
and hardest to use [correctly] XML processor so far.
--
<mailto:di***** ******@yahoo.co m> <http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>
<www.contendix. com> - Software Development & Consulting

[Dietmar Kuehl]

"Steven T. Hatton" <su******@setid ava.kushan.aa> wrote:

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.

No, it did not: it originated in the C world. One stated goal of the C++
binding for CORBA was some form of compatibility to C. Although I accept
that the motives were well-intended, the resulting C++ binding is a pain
in the ass (using a much weaker term than I would have used in my native
language). This view can, of course, be attributed to ignorance about the
finer points of the C++ binding on my side.

That said, any realization of W3C's DOM in C++ using any other approach
than a liberal interpretation of their model will be useless already.
Bolting the CORBA C++ on top of this will definitely not improve the
situation - unless, of course, your goal is the creation of the slowest
and hardest to use [correctly] XML processor so far.
--
<mailto:di***** ******@yahoo.co m> <http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>
<www.contendix. com> - Software Development & Consulting

[Steven T. Hatton]

Dietmar Kuehl wrote:

"Steven T. Hatton" <su******@setid ava.kushan.aa> wrote:

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.

No, it did not: it originated in the C world. One stated goal of the C++
binding for CORBA was some form of compatibility to C. Although I accept
that the motives were well-intended, the resulting C++ binding is a pain
in the ass (using a much weaker term than I would have used in my native
language). This view can, of course, be attributed to ignorance about the
finer points of the C++ binding on my side.

I think this means you don't like the way CORBA (as opposed to the DOM) is
bound to/in C++. Is that correct? If that is what you are intending, I
would like to know more. From my limited understanding of these issues,
this is an area where J2EE has really taken the market share from C++. At
least this is how it looked to me from pretty close to the frontlines.
People were talking CORBA/IIOP and IDL in 1996, and by 2000 the buzz was
all Java Servlets.
--
p->m == (*p).m == p[0].m
http://www.kdevelop.org
http://www.suse.com
http://www.mozilla.org

[Steven T. Hatton]

Dietmar Kuehl wrote:

"Steven T. Hatton" <su******@setid ava.kushan.aa> wrote:

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.

No, it did not: it originated in the C world. One stated goal of the C++
binding for CORBA was some form of compatibility to C. Although I accept
that the motives were well-intended, the resulting C++ binding is a pain
in the ass (using a much weaker term than I would have used in my native
language). This view can, of course, be attributed to ignorance about the
finer points of the C++ binding on my side.

I think this means you don't like the way CORBA (as opposed to the DOM) is
bound to/in C++. Is that correct? If that is what you are intending, I
would like to know more. From my limited understanding of these issues,
this is an area where J2EE has really taken the market share from C++. At
least this is how it looked to me from pretty close to the frontlines.
People were talking CORBA/IIOP and IDL in 1996, and by 2000 the buzz was
all Java Servlets.
--
p->m == (*p).m == p[0].m
http://www.kdevelop.org
http://www.suse.com
http://www.mozilla.org

[Kong Bhat]

ri*****@cogsci. ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote in message news:<c5******* ***@pc-news.cogsci.ed. ac.uk>...

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

Kindly note that I am only in favor of standardizing the API. There
could be multiple implementations that conform to that API (including
Richard's very own "newRXP" parser), in much the same way that we have
standard APIs for I/O handling, string manipulation, mathematical
functions etc. The big advantage of that would be that code written
to handle XML processing would become extremely portable.

I will put my money on the prediction that XML processing within C/C++
applications will take off in a very very big way in the next few
years, especially as the use of WebServices becomes more widespread.
That is why I strongly feel that the time is ripe to move towards
standardizing this API.

Regards,
Kong Posh

[Kong Bhat]

ri*****@cogsci. ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote in message news:<c5******* ***@pc-news.cogsci.ed. ac.uk>...

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

Kindly note that I am only in favor of standardizing the API. There
could be multiple implementations that conform to that API (including
Richard's very own "newRXP" parser), in much the same way that we have
standard APIs for I/O handling, string manipulation, mathematical
functions etc. The big advantage of that would be that code written
to handle XML processing would become extremely portable.

I will put my money on the prediction that XML processing within C/C++
applications will take off in a very very big way in the next few
years, especially as the use of WebServices becomes more widespread.
That is why I strongly feel that the time is ripe to move towards
standardizing this API.

Regards,
Kong Posh

[James Kuyper]

Kong Bhat 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++. 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?

That's an excellent idea - whoever is responsible for XML should
establish a standard library for generating/parsing it. Such a library
would, of course, be too specialized to have any proper place in the
C/C++ standard libraries.