Massimiliano wrote:
> > > Might I suggest exporting the efreet xml parser and use it
> > > instead? Does anyone object? Using strstr to parse xml isn't
> > > very nice.
> > >
> > > Sebastian
> >
> > On my side i don't have any preference, i initially wrote my
> > parser 'cause i've to parse a very small subset of tags, and
> > i rewritten it to make it better/faster and to have support for
> > media namespace. But if you think that efreet's parser is better/
> > faster, feel free to change.
> >
> > Thx
> >
> > Massimiliano
>
> Still waiting for replies?
>
I can't say that I've followed what this is about.. but if
it's something like wether "e" should have a good xml parser/api
vs. everyone who needs something like that having to write their
own... then I'd say it may be time for "e" to stop 'poo-poo-ing' xml
(mostly an excuse to avoid dealing with it) and consider developing
some solid support for it - for those that may wish to NOT write
their own when they need to use xml.
Like it or not, xml is here and not going away any time soon,
its use is almost universal - especially across the web, but also
locally as well.
PS.
Wasn't there "exml" supposedly to deal with this? Or is that
another lib that has serious flaws or limitations?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
