Jose Gonzalez wrote: > Massimiliano wrote: > > > > > Might I suggest exporting the efreet xml parser and use it > > > > instead? Does anyone object? Using strstr to parse xml isn't > > > > very nice. > > > > > > > > Sebastian > > > > > > On my side i don't have any preference, i initially wrote my > > > parser 'cause i've to parse a very small subset of tags, and > > > i rewritten it to make it better/faster and to have support for > > > media namespace. But if you think that efreet's parser is better/ > > > faster, feel free to change. > > > > > > Thx > > > > > > Massimiliano > > > > Still waiting for replies? > > > > I can't say that I've followed what this is about.. but if > it's something like wether "e" should have a good xml parser/api > vs. everyone who needs something like that having to write their > own... then I'd say it may be time for "e" to stop 'poo-poo-ing' xml > (mostly an excuse to avoid dealing with it) and consider developing > some solid support for it - for those that may wish to NOT write > their own when they need to use xml. > Like it or not, xml is here and not going away any time soon, > its use is almost universal - especially across the web, but also > locally as well. > > PS. > Wasn't there "exml" supposedly to deal with this? Or is that > another lib that has serious flaws or limitations? >
Why write our own when libxml2 works quite well? Seems like needless NIH to me. dan ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
