For instance, consuming XML and creating it are two very different use cases. Zooming into consuming it, perhaps your input data has more guarantees than libxml2 assumes, such as the nonexistence of meta definition tags.
"You" probably do not.
But different "yous" need different features, and so they get all glommed together into one big thing. So no one needs "all" of lbxml2/XML's features, each individual needs a different subset.
Of course this is an oversimplification, and there will no doubt be some sort of long tail, but it expresses the challenge well. I'd imagine the same is true for many other reasonably complex libraries, frameworks, or applications.
(I wrote such an XML parser a long time ago.)
In any case, the tooling around XML (DTDs, XPath, XSLT, etc.) is the reason to use it. I would go so far as to say the (supposed) >80% not using those features shouldn't have used XML in the first place.
You’re right about nokogiri, though.
Basically something behaves like your typical JSON parser and serialiser but for XML.
To my knowledge, this is what TinyXML2 does, and I've used TinyXML2 for this before to great effect.
It's doable, just use the right tools and hacks :)
Processing schema-less or broken schema stuff is always hilarious.
Good times.
1. "This XML library is way bigger than what I need, I'll write something more minimal for my use case"
2. write a library for whatever minimal subset you need
3. crash report comes in, realise you missed off some feature x. Add support for some feature x.
4. Bob likes your library. So small, so elegant. He'd love to use it, if only you supported feature y, so you add support for feature y.
...
End result is x+1 big, complex XML libraries.
Obviously Im being a bit obtuse here because you might be able to guarantee some subset of it in whatever your specific circumstances are, but I think it's hard to do over a long period of time. If people think you're speaking XML then at some point they'll say "why don't we use this nice XML feature to add this new functionality".
The former are blazingly fast. In real world they can parse instantly. So alternatives do exist for different use cases.
No. This is the first good expkanation for the library hell in linux those days.
Maybe you don't need libxml2 specifically (good luck finding an alternative to parse XML in C and other such languages though), but "I don't like the complex side of XML so let's pretend it doesn't exist" doesn't solve the problem most people pick libxml2 for. It's the de-facto standard because it supports everything you could possibly need.
Furthermore, those subsets have natural "fault lines", influenced by the burden:utility ratio. This makes consumers and producers naturally coordinate on a subset. It's not like another commenter here said about everyone needing different features.
My argument is therefore that there is value in having different libraries for different subsets - with the smallest subset being much simpler than libxml2.
> <blink>Expat is UNDERSTAFFED and WITHOUT FUNDING.</blink> > The following topics need additional skilled C developers to progress > in a timely manner or at all (loosely ordered by descending priority):