On a more pleasant note

[Barry Paul]

[using CDATA to hide HTML]
> 
> Actually, it's by far the worst of the three.  When someone is
> actually generating the markup (as Tim is in this case), then there
> are immense advantages to being able to process the HTML with the same

Well, I was thinking of a situation where the HTML was not being 
generated by Tim. In this case there is more than a possibility
that the HTML will not be well formed or valid. In this case 
#1 would not work.

> #2 is also pretty awful, but at least it won't blow up if the HTML
> happens to contain the "]]>" character sequence (say, as an
> emoticon?).

I agree, all the solutions are pretty horrible. Have you any other
suggestions as to how "real-world" HTML could be encapsulated in
XML?

-----
Barry

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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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)