Re: XML libs (was Re: gconf backend)

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 02:18:02AM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> At this point I think we're in agreement, if you're saying that as long
> as I am using expat I'm sufficiently conformant.

  I want to understand why you would use expat instead of libxml2
except for the sole argument of driving me nuts, which apparently 
you take a lot of fun doing...unless there is an hidden reason.

  I just checked, by disabling all optional options of libxml2
I get to around 250K of code. I could easilly trim this down a lot
by removing all the validation code, and tree modification code.
Assuming I do this and allow to generate a libtinyxml2 along
libxml2:
    - would you use this
    - would you back-up this change at the Red Hat distro level
      and avoid any objection I may get in the process.
I think this option would be useful for my user base on embedded
systems. This would duplicate code but not API/implementations/debug
existing APIs to build a tree or stream with the reader or SAX1/2
interfaces would be intact (except for the validation capabilities).

  See, I'm trying to make progresses. I don't understand the motivations
for doing so, to me it's nuts, but I won't let this go without finding
out why and how to solve this, assuming it can be solved with purely
rational arguments.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard redhat com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/