Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> > > > > The response from Ron Bourrett was on the mark except > > > > > that I'd have said to always use an XMLWriter of some kind. > > > > > > > > > There are too many corner cases you can trip over when you > > > > > try to turn "raw data" into XML text. > > > > > > > > I think it depends on XML subset one is using. > > > > > > I said "XML" -- no subset, the Real Thing. :) > > > > You mean every XML document in the world > > *should* have a namespaces, bunch of PIs, > > internal DTD e t.c. ? > > No, I only meant what I said. I think that I overreacted to the 'Real Thing' wording. Sorry for that. And now I'm about to overreact to the wording 'marginally interoperable'. Sorry for that as well. > If you're writing XML, > you're better off using tools that write the Real Thing > so you don't create interop problems ... rather than > assuming some marginally interoperable subset. Excuse me, but writing out the *strict* subset of XML creates *zero* interoperability problems. > On the other hand, if the original question had said > that some subset was involved (clearly wasn't, given > the "CDATA is fine" followup :) the answer could > have been different. 'CDATA is fine' means that at this point of time, developer thinks that 'CDATA is fine'. Rgds.Paul.
|
