Re: CDATA sections in W3C XML Infoset

[Charles Reitzel <creitzel@mediaone.net>]

They're great for embedded HTML of the messy, non-xhtml variety.  I.e. real HTML documents that non-XML experts will typically write.  I have used the same CDATA technique to pull in content from outside suppliers within a more structured message containing meta-data.   Since it isn't XML data, nested CDATA sections are a non-issue to me.  Escaping and unescaping all those pointy brackets is a pain in the neck and runs the risk of fouling up the HTML.

take it easy,
Charles Reitzel

At 12:17 PM 3/30/01 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
>Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>
>
>> So why do we have CDATA sections at all?
>> 
>> Oh, never mind.
>
>I'll answer anyway.
>
>They add to human readability in special cases of embedded text,
>where the text contains frequent occurrences of "<" or "&" or both,
>and is known not to contain "]]>".
>
>-- 
>There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
>no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
>to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS
><http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
>"unsubscribe" in the body to: xml-dev-request@lists.xml.org 


take it easy,
Charles Reitzel