On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 11:22:28AM -0800, Mike Pogue wrote: > > > There are plug-in adapters for each code conversion framework. > > > Right now there's one for iconv, one for Win32 conversions, and > > > one for ICU (but ICU itself you get from the IBM Open Source > > > site). > > So I need one of iconv, ICU or the Win32 stuff to build Xerces? > > Never heard of anything other than ICU, so I guess I'll stick with > > that. > Yes, you need to pick one of those. Some people want to do their own > transcoding, so it's split out now as a plugin. Since ICU is Open > Sourced separately, we didn't want to have ICU being developed in two > places (i.e. no fork). So, if we want it, we can get it from the ICU > website. > > Xerces-C could snapshot ICU, if it wants to (ICU is, after all, Open > Source). But, the question is "should we?". What's your opinion?
I'd fully agree with the no fork policy - there's no point duplicating the effort. I'll take a look at the AlphaWorks site tomorrow and see if there's anyone else working on a FreeBSD version of ICU there to see if they've run into the same problems as I have. > > How much different is Xerces than XML4C atm? The changes required to > > get it to compile (given a working ICU) are fairly trivial, so it > > might be an easy task to fold them into the current tree. Or would > > it be better to wait until I'm sure the XML4C stuff is all working > > properly? > Xerces-C is identical to XML4C version 3 (which was not released on > IBM's Alphaworks. It is similar in many ways to version 2. But, > version 3 is faster, and has DOM L2, SAX v2, and is XML Schema > enabled. Ok. What I'll do is convince myself that the XML4C v2 code I've got works nicely and then grab Xerces and try to get it to work there. J. -- Rock and roll stops the traffic. This .sig was brought to you by the letter G and the numbers 5 & 20 Product of the Republic of HuggieTag
