• From: Bob Kline <bkline@r...>
• To: Charles Reitzel <creitzel@m...>
• Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:23:15 -0500 (EST)

On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Charles Reitzel wrote:

> Hi Bob,
> 
> I'm left agreeing w/ John Cowan's earlier remark.  No one is taking
> CDATA sections away.  I ended up using CDATA sections in XML
> documents for identical reasons as yourself and will continue to do
> so.

I hope you're right.  Doesn't appear to be a universally held point of
view, though.  From earlier in this thread [1]:

> I'd take that as meaning that the DOM does not conform to the
> Infoset spec.  Accordingly, the DOM is what needs to be changed, not
> Infoset.

[1] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200103/msg01233.html

-- 
Bob Kline
mailto:bkline@r...
http://www.rksystems.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: CDATA sections in W3C XML Infoset
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>

• References:
  • Re: CDATA sections in W3C XML Infoset
    • From: Charles Reitzel <creitzel@m...>

• Prev by Date: Yet another plea for peace (was RE: Announce: A brief history of SOAP)
• Next by Date: Re: CDATA sections in W3C XML Infoset
• Previous by thread: Re: CDATA sections in W3C XML Infoset
• Next by thread: Re: CDATA sections in W3C XML Infoset
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread