Re: Bundling libxml2 default?

Sterling Hughes <sterling@bumblebury.com> wrote: > > IMO, libxml SAX support will never be fully compatible with the current > > implementation and we'd better prepare a whole new SAX interface for > > libxml. > > That's not true. It will never be 100% compatible, yes. There are > certainly some features that we might have to place on top of libxml2. > But a reasonable 99% can be implemented (what's in CVS still needs a bit > of work, I had a better subset before I reimplemented it as a C compat > layer.) > > As far as forwards compatibility, we can also add new features that > libxml2 supports and expat doesn't with '#ifdef's and a warning saying: > > "You are using the deprecated expat library, if you want this feature > use libxml2". > > Just because the API libxml2 doesn't map 1-1 with expat. Doesn't mean > we shouldn't be as BC as possible. Sounds good, as I took much look into this BC issue and wondering if we have to be consistent on BC. I'd rather take advantage of libxml's better error handling. Moriyoshi > -Sterling > > -- > "Programming today is a race between software engineers stirring to > build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying > to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning." > - Unknown >