• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: CDATA
• From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>
• Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 11:02:02 -0500
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE022DC07E@h...>

> Maybe the requirement is to support NDATA.  I get a lot 
> of inquiries about stuffing jpegs, etc, inline.  When 
> I show them the limited means, I get frowns.  Perhaps 
> it is time to revisit that permathread.

One could prefix such an NDATA section with a length tag,
allowing the parser to simply ignore the next "length" bytes.
That essentially takes the NDATA section out of XML land.
Only drawback: regular text editors have problems with binary data.

Karl

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: CDATA
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • RE: CDATA
    • From: "Linda Grimaldi" <grimlinda@e...>

• References:
  • RE: CDATA
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Why Not NDATA? (WAS RE: CDATA)
• Next by Date: RE: CDATA
• Previous by thread: RE: CDATA
• Next by thread: RE: CDATA
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread