Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>,<firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd b e better off as a crossing guard
- From: "Joshua Allen" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:31:20 -0800
- Thread-index: AcL3ue99GKQBmHH+Q4iVGDnnf3AuzQAGkJjg
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd b e better off as a crossing guard
> doesn't let me scream "IGNORE THAT CDATA SECTION MARKER AND PARSE THE
> DAMN CONTENT NORMALLY!"
The two are not interchangeable, I am sure you know. Markup inside a
CDATA section is completely different from markup inline with the
> I'm in the classically stupid position where the export is generating:
> <repeatingNode1><![CDATA[This is in <b>bold</b>, or at least it should
What exactly is stupid about that? Presumably the application that
generates and consumes that data expects a *text* node, and not xsd:any.
Are you saying that the export was dumb to demand text, or that the
application really wanted xsd:any and simply screwed up?
Even more importantly, do you *really* want your <b></b> tags to be
hanging out with no namespace? What will you do when your "markup"
contains something like "<p><br>"?
I get confused when I see people who *insist* on treating HTML as if it
is "markup" rather than text, and then get predictably upset in the
myriad instances where this causes unnecessary pain.
> More creatively, there may also be times where the use of CDATA
> is appropriate, so simply nuking all of them isn't the right answer
Yeah, exactly -- use CDATA (or escaped XML) when you want a text node.
That is actually a whole lot of cases.