[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
joshuaa@microsoft.com (Joshua Allen) writes:
>The two are not interchangeable, I am sure you know. Markup inside a
>CDATA section is completely different from markup inline with the
>document.
Yes, I know.
>What exactly is stupid about that?
That's there no option for turning off the CDATA escaping.
> 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?
That the application is dumb to expect exclusively text, with no
provision for markup.
>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>"?
Well, actually, that's precisely how we write the stories on
xmlhack.com, and there's this little bit of code that checks your markup
for well-formedness when you enter it. This isn't rocket science.
>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.
It's both markup and text. I get confused when I see people who can't
cope with such situations and insist that everything must be one or the
other.
>Yeah, exactly -- use CDATA (or escaped XML) when you want a text node.
>That is actually a whole lot of cases.
If had control of the cases, I'd be happy. Since I don't, I get to
write code.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
