Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Nik O" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "- XML-Dev" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 15:21:50 -0700
Kragen Sitaker wrote:
>I suspect CDATA sections are hard to live
>without if you're writing XML documents about
>HTML or XML, though.
I disagree. Since a CDATA section cannot contain the "]]>" literal string,
the HTML/XML source being included in such a section must still be filtered
prior to inclusion in the XML document. If you've conceded that a filter
must be applied, why not just filter for "<" and "&" instead (a generically
useful filter, BTW)?
Thus, the filtered XML might look like:
..whilst an alternate version is:
I don't really see that using the equivalent CDATA section is all that much
easier to read or construct in the raw form, and once displayed in a browser
it's all good.
I am also in agreement with those who wish that CDATA had never made it into
XML, and believe that this would be a key simplification in SML, since
general XML parsing rules are overturned within CDATA sections.
Nik O, Teton Data Systems / Teton NewMedia, Jackson, Wyo.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)