• To: David Megginson <david@m...>
• Subject: Re: CDATA
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 12:52:07 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <16009.62133.595965.452818@m...>
• References: <001c01c2f829$e666ce80$6401a8c0@pcukmka> <3E89EE1D.4010608@p...> <16009.62133.595965.452818@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212

David Megginson wrote:
> Paul Prescod writes:
> 
>  > Without reducing the culpability of these lazy programmers, I'll
>  > say that CDATA is pretty broken and should be fixed if there is
>  > ever an XML 2.0.
 >
> Or just scrap the whole thing.

I can't agree with that. For instance, SCRIPT in XHTML would become 
quite ugly and arguably unusable if you had to use ampersand encoding.

  Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: CDATA
    • From: Adam Turoff <ziggy@p...>

• References:
  • 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...>
  • CDATA
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • re: CDATA
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: re: CDATA
• Next by Date: RE: UDDI and ebXML Registry: A Co-Existence Paradigm
• Previous by thread: re: CDATA
• Next by thread: Re: CDATA
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread