[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 12:52:07PM -0800, Paul Prescod wrote:
> David Megginson wrote:
> >Paul Prescod writes:
> > > Without reducing the culpability of these lazy programmers, I'll
> > > say that CDATA is pretty broken and should be fixed if there is
> > > ever an XML 2.0.
> >
> >Or just scrap the whole thing.
I agree.
> I can't agree with that. For instance, SCRIPT in XHTML would become
> quite ugly and arguably unusable if you had to use ampersand encoding.
There are other ways to solve that problem without resorting to special
and arcane syntax. CDATA syntax made more sense with SGML, where there
were also conditional include/ignore sections. As it stands today,
CDATA is a wart. It fails in only 0.01% of situations, but it is still
a wart.
I don't see why that role cannot be fufilled with a PI, for example:
<SCRIPT><?xml:data endtoken="-->" ?><!--
if (i < 5) {
...
}
//-->
</SCRIPT>
(And it's a simple way to incorporate your proposal for user-defined end
tokens. :-)
Z.
|
