RE: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd b e
joshuaa@m... (Joshua Allen) writes: >The two are not interchangeable, I am sure you know. Markup inside a >CDATA section is completely different from markup inline with the >document. Yes, I know. >What exactly is stupid about that? That's there no option for turning off the CDATA escaping. > 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? That the application is dumb to expect exclusively text, with no provision for markup. >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>"? Well, actually, that's precisely how we write the stories on xmlhack.com, and there's this little bit of code that checks your markup for well-formedness when you enter it. This isn't rocket science. >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. It's both markup and text. I get confused when I see people who can't cope with such situations and insist that everything must be one or the other. >Yeah, exactly -- use CDATA (or escaped XML) when you want a text node. >That is actually a whole lot of cases. If had control of the cases, I'd be happy. Since I don't, I get to write code. -- 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