• To: 'Rick Jelliffe' <ricko@a...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: CDATA
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:16:09 -0600

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.

len

From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@a...]

Another point for removing CDATA marked sections is that
many people expect "CDATA" really means "NDATA",
to allow them to stick in binary fragments (which may cause 
transcoding problems).

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: CDATA
    • From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>
  • RE: CDATA
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: CDATA
    • From: "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: E4X
• Next by Date: RE: RE: CDATA
• Previous by thread: Re: RE: CDATA
• Next by thread: Re: CDATA
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread