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 14:50:05 -0800
- Thread-index: AcL31nmxS+TTumvcQwCdmO7C8OxCpgAAJX1Q
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd b e better off as a crossing guard
> 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
> for well-formedness when you enter it. This isn't rocket science.
On the one hand you have no problem using some hackish version of HTML
that is neither XHTML nor HTML 4.0; yet you consider it an unacceptable
hack to use CDATA. This is the irony that puzzled me at first.
I suppose I understand why you are doing it, though, and agree that
tools do a bad job of supporting scenarios where you want to enter the
raw markup directly (rather than text). On the other hand, *some* tools
aren't even smart enough to escape markup symbols that creep into text
fields, and that's even more annoying.