RE: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd b e
> doesn't let me scream "IGNORE THAT CDATA SECTION MARKER AND PARSE THE > DAMN CONTENT NORMALLY!" The two are not interchangeable, I am sure you know. Markup inside a CDATA section is completely different from markup inline with the document. > I'm in the classically stupid position where the export is generating: > > <root> > ... > <repeatingNode1><![CDATA[This is in <b>bold</b>, or at least it should > be.]]></repeatingNode1> > <repeatingNode2>content</repeatingNode2> > .... > </root> What exactly is stupid about that? Presumably the application that generates and consumes that data expects a *text* node, and not xsd:any. Are you saying that the export was dumb to demand text, or that the application really wanted xsd:any and simply screwed up? 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>"? I get confused when I see people who *insist* on treating HTML as if it is "markup" rather than text, and then get predictably upset in the myriad instances where this causes unnecessary pain. > More creatively, there may also be times where the use of CDATA sections > is appropriate, so simply nuking all of them isn't the right answer Yeah, exactly -- use CDATA (or escaped XML) when you want a text node. That is actually a whole lot of cases.
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