The XML module in Phobos

[Michael Rynn]

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 00:25:20 -0400, Benji Smith
<dlanguage at benjismith.net> wrote:

>
An interface using D ranges for the parser?  First you get the parser.

There is a lot of prior art, especially java based open source.
For instance see http://www.xmlpull.org/history/index.html.

Existing XML parsers vary and trade off various features. high level
interface flexibility vs speed vs memory vs validation against schemas
and DTD vs random access vs single pass. 

There are different  flavours of XML parsers. 
They are like sets of spanners and tools of varying shapes and
capacities, to match up to the job criteria.

All methods have to parse through the XML (until completion or search
criteria satisfied ) and ensure valid XML, UTF conversion, Entity
translation.  

Then there is namespace support, and now 2 versions of XPath
documented by w3c  mixed up with XQuery.

It would be nice  to have well defined interfaces for  DOM, SAX and
PULL parsers which share some of the base parsing code. The DOM can be
partial,  as node sets returned from XPath query. Nice how the phobos
parser can make a full DOM or just the bits required.

The current Tango and Phobos parsers are interesting in having their
own special D personality and features, and are reasonably self
contained.  

Its so nice to have choice, and would be nice to have XML parsers of
some varying features that are usable with both standard libraries and
both D1 and D2, and have adequate documentation.   But to achieve just
1 version would be a start.

I would hope for a few different of core parser interfaces in
different modules, and compare versioned features on  them.

So the idea of 1 standard xml parser is a bit limiting.
There is still a need to continue to support and enhance existing
std.xml , even if a more compelling candidate emerges, to replace or
to add in parallel.

Who is using what for XML parsing in native D now?