Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> doesn't let me scream "IGNORE THAT CDATA SECTION MARKER AND PARSE THE > DAMN CONTENT NORMALLY!" The two are not interchangeable, I am sure you know. Markup inside a CDATA section is completely different from markup inline with the document. > I'm in the classically stupid position where the export is generating: > > <root> > ... > <repeatingNode1><![CDATA[This is in <b>bold</b>, or at least it should > be.]]></repeatingNode1> > <repeatingNode2>content</repeatingNode2> > .... > </root> What exactly is stupid about that? Presumably the application that generates and consumes that data expects a *text* node, and not xsd:any. Are you saying that the export was dumb to demand text, or that the application really wanted xsd:any and simply screwed up? Even more importantly, do you *really* want your <b></b> tags to be hanging out with no namespace? What will you do when your "markup" contains something like "<p><br>"? I get confused when I see people who *insist* on treating HTML as if it is "markup" rather than text, and then get predictably upset in the myriad instances where this causes unnecessary pain. > More creatively, there may also be times where the use of CDATA sections > is appropriate, so simply nuking all of them isn't the right answer Yeah, exactly -- use CDATA (or escaped XML) when you want a text node. That is actually a whole lot of cases.
|
