• From: Matt Sergeant <matt.sergeant@b...>
• To: "'Tom Otvos'" <tom.otvos@p...>, "'xml-dev@i...'" <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:20:06 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Otvos [mailto:tom.otvos@p...]
> 
The
> proposed alternative was to skip CDATA altogether and just 
> entity-encode the
> HTML, making it virtually illegible in a text editor but very 
> readable in an
> XML editor.

To make it more readable you could just encode "<" and "&" - they're the
only characters you really have to encode. The only way I see that getting
_really_ ugly is if you have &amp; in your HTML.

Sorry, I know this doesn't answer your question though, but that's only
because I didn't quite understand what you were saying. It sounded as though
you were saying that the XML editors (or your parser) *weren't* preserving
carriage returns in CDATA sections. Any editor that does this should be
thrown out IMHO - it's broken behaviour. Of course if that's not what you're
saying, perhaps you could be a little more clear for me.

Matt.

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Prev by Date: What's up with XLink?
• Next by Date: Re: What's up with XLink?
• Previous by thread: Re: Is CDATA "structure"?
• Next by thread: RE: Is CDATA "structure"?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread