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 jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
