Lists Home |
Date Index |
firstname.lastname@example.org (Joshua Allen) writes:
>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.
In its final context, it's valid XHTML 1.0. I don't particularly care
whether it's valid inside the database cell. Validity and namespace
processing are just dandy, in their particular contexts, but much of the
time I don't give a damn about them. I'd much rather be certain that I
can work with entity references and not have them transmogrify into
something else, even their 'proper' result, until I'm ready.
>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.
And heck, some tools respond to a <![CDATA[..]]> in a text field by
wrapping it in a CDATA section. I think that causes some nasty
conflicts with Section 2.4 of XML 1.0:
The right angle bracket (>) may be represented using the string ">",
and must, for compatibility, be escaped using ">" or a character
reference when it appears in the string "]]>" in content, when that
string is not marking the end of a CDATA section.
Five years in, a long way to go yet.
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org