std.xml2 candidate

[so]

> If you take into account that tango's xml parser does less validation and
> that it is up to par with the fastest C++ parsers out there, I suggest
> lowering the bar a little bit at first. For example, outperforming  
> libxml2.

There is no reason a D code should perform worse than C++ if you are not  
using some high level constructs.
When it comes to strings/slicing/template, you might actually get  
performance boost comparing to C++.
The C++ parser mentioned here (RapidXML) depends heavily on these.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/