• From: Steinar Bang <sb@m...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: 08 Dec 1999 09:12:46 +0100

>>>>> roddey@u...:

This statement:

> ... If it were up to me, I'd say use every modern service of C++ and
> those who don't have compliant C++ implementation can have a good reason to
> get one.
[...]

conflicts with this statement:

> 2) We would prefer that all data come out of the SAX interfaces as
> raw wchar_t strings. This is the most flexible mechanism and does
> not lock people into using any particular implementation of a string
> object. It also has the highest potential performance for those
> folks who never need to put it into anything more formal than a raw
> array.

std::basic_string<> _is_ a modern service of C++, and a pretty good
one from an API point of view.

Personally I say: use std::basic_string<> and death to all other
string representations in C++.

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Request for Discussion: SAX 1.0 in C++
    • From: Marc Lepage <mlepage@a...>

• References:
  • Re: Request for Discussion: SAX 1.0 in C++
    • From: roddey@u...

• Prev by Date: SML and I18N
• Next by Date: Re: nestable C/C++ XML parser?
• Previous by thread: Re: Request for Discussion: SAX 1.0 in C++
• Next by thread: Re: Request for Discussion: SAX 1.0 in C++
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread