• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: CDATA
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:33:42 +1000
• References: <001c01c2f829$e666ce80$6401a8c0@pcukmka> <3E89EE1D.4010608@p...> <16009.62133.595965.452818@m...> <3E89FBF7.5060708@p...> <20030401220135.GF23221@p...>

From: "Adam Turoff" <ziggy@p...>

> > >Or just scrap the whole thing.
> 
> I agree.

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).

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• 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...>
  • Re: CDATA
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: CDATA
    • From: Adam Turoff <ziggy@p...>

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