• From: "Andrew Welch" <andrew.j.welch@g...>
• To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@i...>
• Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:10:48 +0100

2008/9/30 Henry S. Thompson <ht@i...>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I seem to be in the minority, but I think using CDATA-sections is
> entirely reasonable when inserting large amounts of textual material
> in an XML document.  Note I said 'textual material' -- this _does_
> often contain ampersands, but close-enought-to-never contains the
> catastrophic ]]>.  The same observation does _not_, of course, apply
> to large amounts of binary data.


Isn't the point though, that you can insert large amounts of "textual
material" into the in-memory version of the XML as a text node and
then let the serializer deal with it as normal.

It's only when you insert that textual material into the serlized form
of the XML that you need to worry about using a cdata section...

That's right isn't it?




-- 
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Tradeoffs of XML encoding by enclosing all content in CDATA blocks
    • From: ht@i... (Henry S. Thompson)

• References:
  • Tradeoffs of XML encoding by enclosing all content in CDATA blocks
    • From: "Karr, David" <david.karr@w...>
  • Re: Tradeoffs of XML encoding by enclosing all contentin CDATA blocks
    • From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w...>
  • Re: Tradeoffs of XML encoding by enclosing all content in CDATA blocks
    • From: "Fraser Goffin" <goffinf@g...>
  • Re: Tradeoffs of XML encoding by enclosing all content in CDATA blocks
    • From: ht@i... (Henry S. Thompson)