Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
They're great for embedded HTML of the messy, non-xhtml variety. I.e. real HTML documents that non-XML experts will typically write. I have used the same CDATA technique to pull in content from outside suppliers within a more structured message containing meta-data. Since it isn't XML data, nested CDATA sections are a non-issue to me. Escaping and unescaping all those pointy brackets is a pain in the neck and runs the risk of fouling up the HTML. take it easy, Charles Reitzel At 12:17 PM 3/30/01 -0500, John Cowan wrote: >Simon St.Laurent wrote: > > >> So why do we have CDATA sections at all? >> >> Oh, never mind. > >I'll answer anyway. > >They add to human readability in special cases of embedded text, >where the text contains frequent occurrences of "<" or "&" or both, >and is known not to contain "]]>". > >-- >There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan@r...> >no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com >to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan >with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein > > >------------------------------------------------------------------ >The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS ><http://www.oasis-open.org> > >The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > >To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word >"unsubscribe" in the body to: xml-dev-request@l... take it easy, Charles Reitzel
|
