On Sep 5, 2011, at 2:22 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> Samuel thinks we could stay with XML and reimplement our own
> parsing/dumping without libxml2.
>
> My feeling about this is:
> + We would have a single file format for import/export.
> + Saving would likely be easy (copy-paste from the current code and/or
> from the JSON export)
> - Parsing would require some work (the libxml2-based parser isn't easy
> to modify, but we could adapt the JSON parser)
Is there a way to make the parsing easier? I.e., do we have to accept fully generic XML? Or can we restrict it somehow such that the parsing becomes much more deterministic / simpler?
> - Encoding may be annoying. libxml2 does a lot of things to manage
> strings properly. There's not a lot of special character in a usual XML
> output, but there can be (because the user can annotate the objects).
> - I am a bit afraid that we would go from a well-working XML support to
> something much less reliable (do we need to be fully XML compliant so
> that external programs can load our XML files and play with them?)
A fair point.
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres_at_[hidden]
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}