Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
joshuaa@m... (Joshua Allen) writes: >On the one hand you have no problem using some hackish version of HTML >that is neither XHTML nor HTML 4.0; yet you consider it an unacceptable >hack to use CDATA. This is the irony that puzzled me at first. In its final context, it's valid XHTML 1.0. I don't particularly care whether it's valid inside the database cell. Validity and namespace processing are just dandy, in their particular contexts, but much of the time I don't give a damn about them. I'd much rather be certain that I can work with entity references and not have them transmogrify into something else, even their 'proper' result, until I'm ready. >I suppose I understand why you are doing it, though, and agree that >tools do a bad job of supporting scenarios where you want to enter the >raw markup directly (rather than text). On the other hand, *some* >tools aren't even smart enough to escape markup symbols that creep >into text fields, and that's even more annoying. And heck, some tools respond to a <![CDATA[..]]> in a text field by wrapping it in a CDATA section. I think that causes some nasty conflicts with Section 2.4 of XML 1.0: -------------------- The right angle bracket (>) may be represented using the string ">", and must, for compatibility, be escaped using ">" or a character reference when it appears in the string "]]>" in content, when that string is not marking the end of a CDATA section. --------------------- Five years in, a long way to go yet. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
