RE: Tradeoffs of XML encoding by enclosing all content in CDAT
> No I (like Rick) am talking about pragmatism. Sometimes it is > possible to reason about the likely occurence of edge cases > such as ]]> I'm sometimes prepared to be pragmatic, for example I don't worry too much what happens if an input document contains a text node longer than 2G characters. But writing code that breaks if a particular 3-character sequence is present in the input? Sorry, but you won't find me doing that, or willingly using code written by someone else who does that. It's not as if it's a rare character sequence. It's been present in half-a-dozen mail messages that I've received over the last couple of days. Thanks, Richard, for the reminder that "]]>" is illegal even outside CDATA. I knew that of course, but it's the kind of rule you can easily forget because it is so totally irrational. You can survive a long time with a pragmatic approach to coding. I came across one schema processor that didn't bother to "undeclare" namespace prefixes when they went out of scope, and I bet very few users have ever noticed, and those that have are unlikely to suffer seriously as a result. But I wouldn't do that either. Call it puritanism if you like. I program for pleasure, and shipping code with that sort of deficiency just leaves a bad taste. If you go down that road, you don't know when to stop, and you end up shipping garbage. You'll never find me asking users to vote on which bugs should be fixed either. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format