2008/8/29 Terry Judd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Depending on how complex the xml is you may be better off writing your own > parser from scratch, bypassing the revXML routines altogether.
That's what I have been doing - but this is surely a hack. With things like atom feeds, we should have simple generic standardized libraries. Personally I am a little tired of writing custom little parsers for every feed out there - isn't there a better way? Half my stuff is using revXML, and half replace / filter combinations. Most languages have standardised libraries for this sort of thing? Or no? > xmlparser is great there a lots of times when I don't use it to extract > data > from xml files/data, particularly if I don't need to write stuff back into > that xml. My hope is that the new array structure will allow some generic way to deal with hierarchical structures - whether these are outlines, xml, json, or whatever. That still wouldn't deal with getting the data in - as there are inconsistent implementations. _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
