• From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 01:35:58 +0800

 >> > While I admit that CDATA sections are just syntactic sugar,

There is nothing "just" about syntactic sugar.  Sugar provides, at a minimal
cost in time to the implementation, alternative ways for users of a language
to acheive some result.

Since the benefit of a library is largely to reduce wasteful rewrites of the
same functionality, sugar is not the sign of a bad language but can be the
sign of a good and useable one.

The confusion arises when some specs decide to treat the sugar as
significant. It ripples forward into people's expectations of other specs.

Not all sugar is fat.

Cheers
Rick

• Prev by Date: Problem building Microsoft's SAX2Jumpstart
• Next by Date: Managing e-zines with JavaMail and XSLT, Part 1
• Previous by thread: Re: CDATA sections in W3C XML Infoset
• Next by thread: RE: CDATA sections in W3C XML Infoset
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread