Re: Digest Number 130

["Rick Winfield" <rick@rickwinfield.com>]

I chose to use the CDATA method at work.  We have a partner (one of 
the major portals so they actually have programming resources) that 
wanted XHTML, but since our documents are originally authored in HTML 
(as would be the "normal" case in my opinion) this wasn't possible.

Do you think it would be that hard to get people to use CDATA?

--- In syndication@egroups.com, Ian Graham <ian.graham@u...> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Aaron Swartz wrote:
> 
> > Ian Graham <ian.graham@u...> wrote:
> > 
> > > (a) put the HTML inside a CDATA section (to escape it, so to 
speak),
> > > or (b) use things like base64 encoding (and/or compression) to 
package
> > > the data up.  Both are, unfortunately, non-simple.....
> > 
> > There's also the option of using entity encoding (like 
&lt;br&gt;) -- this
> > is supported by almost all parsers and most HTML/XML-enabled 
scripting
> > environments. Of course, it's much harder than a CDATA section to 
read by
> > hand (which is the purpose of XML to begin with).
> > 
> > What's so non-simple about a CDATA section, though? It seems to 
me rather
> > easy to output the opening and closing CDATA tags. A problem may 
be that it
> > isn't properly supported by some parsers, but this is a fault of 
the parser
> > (since it is in the spec), and shouldn't be too difficult to 
remedy.
> 
> I meant non-simple in the 'I can author this by hand' sense. As a 
pure
> coding issue it is by far the easiest choice -- the only thing you 
need to
> escape would be any bare ]]>'s inside the HTML (or, equally well, 
XML)  
> markup. 
> 
> I'll have more up on the Web site on this later this week :-)
> 
> Ian