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

[Claudio Puviani]

Re: Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++

[cross-posts removed]

"Kong Bhat" <kbhat@sta.sams ung.com> wrote[color=blue]
> 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++.[/color]

Firstly, this is the wrong forum to propose changes to the standard. You
want comp.std.c++ for that. This newsgroup deals with C++ as it's specified,
not as random individuals would see it changed.
[color=blue]
> Personally I have been working with libxml2
> (www.gnome.org) for a while now, and I am quite
> comfortable with it.[/color]

So what's your problem? If it does what you need, just keep using it.
[color=blue]
> I believe that libxml2 is a good start, but I think a
> slimmer version of libxml2 should be standardized.[/color]

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.

Claudio Puviani

[Claudio Puviani]

Re: Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++

[cross-posts removed]

"Kong Bhat" <kbhat@sta.sams ung.com> wrote[color=blue]
> 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++.[/color]

Firstly, this is the wrong forum to propose changes to the standard. You
want comp.std.c++ for that. This newsgroup deals with C++ as it's specified,
not as random individuals would see it changed.
[color=blue]
> Personally I have been working with libxml2
> (www.gnome.org) for a while now, and I am quite
> comfortable with it.[/color]

So what's your problem? If it does what you need, just keep using it.
[color=blue]
> I believe that libxml2 is a good start, but I think a
> slimmer version of libxml2 should be standardized.[/color]

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.

Claudio Puviani

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Re: Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++

Kong Bhat wrote:
[color=blue]
> With XML becoming the de facto data description standard,
> I am extremely surprised that there is no movement
> toward 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.[/color]

How is this on-topic in comp.std.c, comp.lang.c or comp.lang.c++?
Do you want to make this library part of the standard library?
If so, is there a compelling reason why this library must be implemented
by the compiler developer and not a third party vendor?
If the library can be implemented by third party vendors, then
a standard separate from the C/C++ standards may be a better option.

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Re: Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++

Kong Bhat wrote:
[color=blue]
> With XML becoming the de facto data description standard,
> I am extremely surprised that there is no movement
> toward 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.[/color]

How is this on-topic in comp.std.c, comp.lang.c or comp.lang.c++?
Do you want to make this library part of the standard library?
If so, is there a compelling reason why this library must be implemented
by the compiler developer and not a third party vendor?
If the library can be implemented by third party vendors, then
a standard separate from the C/C++ standards may be a better option.

[Richard Tobin]

Re: Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++

In article <8dfd0463.04040 70644.2b9d4d47@ posting.google. com>,
Kong Bhat <kbhat@sta.sams ung.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>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++.[/color]

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

[Richard Tobin]

Re: Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++

In article <8dfd0463.04040 70644.2b9d4d47@ posting.google. com>,
Kong Bhat <kbhat@sta.sams ung.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>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++.[/color]

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

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

Re: Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++

Kong Bhat wrote:[color=blue]
> ... I think a slimmer version of libxml2 should be standardized.[/color]

"Feel free."

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

Re: Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++

Kong Bhat wrote:[color=blue]
> ... I think a slimmer version of libxml2 should be standardized.[/color]

"Feel free."

[Steven T. Hatton]

[OT]W3C issue: Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++

Claudio Puviani wrote:
[color=blue]
> [cross-posts removed]
>
> "Kong Bhat" <kbhat@sta.sams ung.com> wrote[color=green]
>> 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++.[/color]
>
> Firstly, this is the wrong forum to propose changes to the standard.[/color]

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-Level-3-Core-20020409/idl-definitions.html

Apache has this proposal out:

http://xml.apache.org/xerces-c/ApacheDOMC++BindingL3.html

[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

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]

[OT]W3C issue: Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++

Claudio Puviani wrote:
[color=blue]
> [cross-posts removed]
>
> "Kong Bhat" <kbhat@sta.sams ung.com> wrote[color=green]
>> 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++.[/color]
>
> Firstly, this is the wrong forum to propose changes to the standard.[/color]

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-Level-3-Core-20020409/idl-definitions.html

Apache has this proposal out:

http://xml.apache.org/xerces-c/ApacheDOMC++BindingL3.html

[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

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]

Re: [OT]W3C issue: Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++

Steven T. Hatton wrote:
[color=blue]
> Claudio Puviani wrote:
>[color=green]
>> [cross-posts removed]
>>
>> "Kong Bhat" <kbhat@sta.sams ung.com> wrote[color=darkred]
>>> 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++.[/color]
>>
>> Firstly, this is the wrong forum to propose changes to the standard.[/color]
>
> 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.[/color]

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]

Re: [OT]W3C issue: Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++

Steven T. Hatton wrote:
[color=blue]
> Claudio Puviani wrote:
>[color=green]
>> [cross-posts removed]
>>
>> "Kong Bhat" <kbhat@sta.sams ung.com> wrote[color=darkred]
>>> 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++.[/color]
>>
>> Firstly, this is the wrong forum to propose changes to the standard.[/color]
>
> 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.[/color]

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]

Re: [OT]W3C issue: Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++

"Steven T. Hatton" <susudata@setid ava.kushan.aa> wrote:[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

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:dietmar _kuehl@yahoo.co m> <http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>
<www.contendix. com> - Software Development & Consulting

[Dietmar Kuehl]

Re: [OT]W3C issue: Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++

"Steven T. Hatton" <susudata@setid ava.kushan.aa> wrote:[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

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:dietmar _kuehl@yahoo.co m> <http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>
<www.contendix. com> - Software Development & Consulting