On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Peter Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was specifically meaning - support a syntax which is legal "XML", but > not actually "XML". Then you wouldn't have to support xpath, xinclude, > and all the other baggage associated with XML. > > You could, for example, define the white-space formatting to be stricter > than XML, choose not to support those features of the XML you don't > need.
IMHO, writing from scratch a lexer/parser that parses a subset of XML is worse than just re-using an already available, externally maintained (by *other* time-limited volunteers) library that happens to support much much more of XML, such as expat or libxml. Just because libxml might have support for XPath and friends doesn't mean gEDA MUST use it. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user