RE: Re: Was it something I said? (was: proper way to use Xerces for what I'm trying to do)

Thanks Boris, any comments are helpful.

-----Original Message-----
From: news [mailto:news@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Boris Kolpackov
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 2:56 AM
To: c-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Was it something I said? (was: proper way to use Xerces for
what I'm trying to do)

Hi Will,

"Will Sappington" <wsappington@xxxxxxx> writes:

> We haven't decided on which one yet, but libxml looks pretty good from
> what I've done with it so far.  If anyone has experience or knowledge
of
> both and can shed some light on the advantages/disadvantages of
either,
> I'd appreciate the insight.

One big difference between Xerces-C++ and Libxml2 is that the latter
does not have a functional XML Schema validator. I don't know if it
is important to you or not. Also note that much of the speed-up of
Libxml2 compared to Xerces-C++ comes from the fact that Xerces-C++
uses 2-byte characters (UTF-16) while Libxml2 uses 1-byte characters
(UTF-8). Since most performance tests that I am aware of are done
on XML files that are either ASCII or UTF-8, Libxml2 has a natural
advantage here. This is also something to consider depending on the
type of applications you are planning to build.


hth,
-boris


-- 
Boris Kolpackov
Code Synthesis Tools CC
http://www.codesynthesis.com
Open-Source, Cross-Platform C++ XML Data Binding