On 9/27/07, Daniel Veillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 05:48:00PM +1000, Mark Rowe wrote: > > > > I'm not sure I understand this argument. Other than the character > > sets supported by the library, there should be zero difference between > > functionality when using ICU or iconv. The character sets available > > to iconv appears to be very platform-dependent as well. A comparison > > of two Debian machines I have at hand shows that one has over 1150 > > encoding aliases available to iconv, while the other only has 950. On > > two Macs that I have in front of me running different versions of Mac > > OS X, one has 460 and the other 400. > > > > Could you clarify what you mean by this? I'm not advocating that ICU > > be the default, I'm just curious why you feel vendors should not use > > it if it is present. > > Very simple, I don't want to be perceived as depending on ICU. I don't > want all apps depending on libxml2 to depend (indirectly) on ICU. > I also know that iconv memory footprint at runtime is near neglectible, > when I looked at ICU (a long time ago admitedly) it really wasn't looking > that way. I don't want a simple xmllint of a file using latin character to > drag megabytes of memory just because you though it was a good idea to > link to ICU 'because it is available'. The end result will be 'libxml2 > is a memory hog' and people will just don't look at why this happened > just on a given platform. > If there is any risk of this, I prefer to not put any patch in the > source.
I vehemently disagree with this line of thinking. Pandering to idiots so that you get a better review on their invalid benchmarks is a horrible, HORRIBLE, idea. Idiots will be idiots, regardless of what you do. It's the informed people which you should care about - and to them, choice will always better. -- Cory Nelson _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
