httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Markus Wichitill <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Basic apr_xml_parser
Date Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:48:19 GMT
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Personally I don't consider the "Microsoft standard" to be a
> reasonable basis for deciding what things to include in libapreq.
> There are already over two dozen implementations of XForms on the 
> client-side, including various IE6 plugins.  On the server-side,

I don't see this as a Microsoft thing, since Opera and Safari/Konqueror 
don't support XForms either (but like Mozilla will support the HTML-based 
WHATWG stuff instead).

> Cocoon already implements it.  Why shouldn't we?

I'd ask the opposite instead, why should we? Is there really serious demand 
for this? Does this really need to be part of apreq, when XML can be parsed 
without apreq just fine, and XForms can apparently be submitted with 
conventional encodings?

I'd hate to see apreq change from a small and efficient module to a fairly 
large and bloated XML affair. I'd rather use libxml2/XML::LibXML directly 
whenever I really need to parse XML.

But if you're sure that you want to include XML support, could it be 
included/excluded at compile time, or at least only load additional 
libraries like libxml2 etc. on request? I guess that's necessary anyway, 
unless you want to bundle/require libxml2 on Win32.

View raw message