Nik O niko at
Tue Nov 23 22:22:58 GMT 1999

Kragen Sitaker wrote:
>I suspect CDATA sections are hard to live
>without if you're writing XML documents about
>HTML or XML, though.

I disagree.  Since a CDATA section cannot contain the "]]>" literal string,
the HTML/XML source being included in such a section must still be filtered
prior to inclusion in the XML document.  If you've conceded that a filter
must be applied, why not just filter for "<" and "&" instead (a generically
useful filter, BTW)?

Thus, the filtered XML might look like:
  <html_source>&lt;A HREF=""&gt;</html_source>

..whilst an alternate version is:
  <html_source><![CDATA[<A HREF="">]]></html_source>

I don't really see that using the equivalent CDATA section is all that much
easier to read or construct in the raw form, and once displayed in a browser
it's all good.

I am also in agreement with those who wish that CDATA had never made it into
XML, and believe that this would be a key simplification in SML, since
general XML parsing rules are overturned within CDATA sections.

 Nik O, Teton Data Systems / Teton NewMedia, Jackson, Wyo.

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list