Re: [xml-dev] Tradeoffs of XML encoding by enclosing all content in CDAT

[ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrew Welch writes:

> 2008/9/30 Henry S. Thompson <Please don't include my email address
                               in your [archived] replies!>:

>> I seem to be in the minority, but I think using CDATA-sections is
>> entirely reasonable when inserting large amounts of textual material
>> in an XML document.  Note I said 'textual material' -- this _does_
>> often contain ampersands, but close-enought-to-never contains the
>> catastrophic ]]>.  The same observation does _not_, of course, apply
>> to large amounts of binary data.
>
> Isn't the point though, that you can insert large amounts of "textual
> material" into the in-memory version of the XML as a text node and
> then let the serializer deal with it as normal.

Absolutely.  But I didn't _think_ that was what the OP was asking, but
I may well have mis-remembered by now :-)

> It's only when you insert that textual material into the serlized form
> of the XML that you need to worry about using a cdata section...
>
> That's right isn't it?

Yes.

ht
- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
                         Half-time member of W3C Team
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFI4kD1kjnJixAXWBoRAqxiAKCClSeGOhGdQhOWXh5XVr6A00nq1wCbB7ub
3nvpHWCk0oVNKjMVeeq69lA=
=Fd/M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----