From: "Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >If there are technical reasons why the library cannot be extended to >do this than I would definitely vote to reject. It sounds like that's >what you and Robert are saying, but I don't understand why you think >this?
I have to admit I have only a cursory knowledge of XML. I bought a book just consider this question. When I tried to envision rendering things like stl containers of polymorphic pointers to objects with diamond inheritance so of which are repeated into XML my imagination failed me. Oh then there is the data name - not readily available in C++. So I rebuffed requests for assurances that this system can be extended to XML. As I do now. This question came up before in the context of a proposed alternative design that purportadly would be extensible to cover XML. I did demonstrate that this system was at least as powerful as the suggested alternative so that wasn't an argument for the alternative. If you need an apriori guarentee that this is extensible to XML in order to vote for the library then your decision is easy. I don't believe anyone can give such a guarentee for this case. Of course, if someone does manage to do this - great. But until someone does, you should vote against it. Robert Ramey _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
