RE: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd b e
joshuaa@m... (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. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format