An incompatible CData idea

[Vivek Agrawala]

Jarle Stabell wrote:
> 
> Explicit CData Marker
> 
> Instead of having to confront a DTD in order to find out whether an
> element(type) is CData or not, I feel it would be better if this info were
> explicit in the document instance.
> F.i. by adding a special CData symbol at the end of the start-tag if one
> wants its content treated as CData.
> If the symbol is present, the content is "plain/unstructured" text (CData),
> if it's not, the content is tagged/structured text (Mixed/PCData).
> 
> Example: (Here the symbol '*' is used to indicate CData)
> 
> <MyText>This is not CData, <MyText*>but this is! Here I can write &, <,
> <element> or whatever I want without being concerned about clashing with
> other "magic" symbols until the end-tag.</MyText></MyText>

Don't CDATA sections provide this functionality already?
Your example would go something like:

<MyText>This is not CData, <![CDATA[but this is! Here I can write &, <,
<element> or whatever I want without being concerned about clashing with
other "magic" symbols until the end-tag.]]></MyText>

The only limitation is that you can't have the string ']]>' within
the CDATA section.

-- Vivek Agrawala, Ph.D.
Siemens Corporate Research, Inc.	email: vivek at scr.siemens.com

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)