• To: "'Joshua Allen'" <joshuaa@m...>,"'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd b e better off as a crossing guard
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 09:37:16 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C108869098@r...>
• Reply-to: <michael.h.kay@n...>

> > 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.

I always suspect that software that blindly wraps everything in CDATA
sections regardless of its content is probably not bothering to check
whether the text contains "]]>".

But as other current threads show, there are a lot of folks out there,
including some who work for absurdly profitable software companies, who
reckon that if it works 99.99% of the time, that's good enough.

Michael Kay

• Follow-Ups:
  • CDATA
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd b e better off as a crossing guard
    • From: "J.Pietschmann" <j3322ptm@y...>

• Prev by Date: RE: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd b e better off as a crossing guard
• Next by Date: XML's Scylla and Charybdis - parse and regexp
• Previous by thread: RE: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd b e better off as a crossing guard
• Next by thread: Re: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd b e better off as a crossing guard
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread