Thanks for the suggestion Joseph. Not being much of a xml guru, I wasn't aware that avoiding CDATA nodes was better. I though that all content where there was a potential for < > & should be put into a cdata node. I definitely can tell my clients that they should expect & and <.
-----Original Message----- From: Joseph Kesselman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 20, 2003 3:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Adjacent CDATA node problems Just curiosity,but why are you specifying cdata-section-elements="URL" in the first place? Yes, it avoids the need for escaping when '&' appears in the URL value. But if the URI ever contains a character outside your base encoding (definitely possible, since the web is international) you *MUST* exit the CDATA Section in order to be able to escape that character... at which point the customers who have trouble with it now are going to scream again. The same thing happens if someone, somehow, managed to get the character sequence ]]> into the text string; there is no way to represent that without exiting the CDATA Section. Safer to avoid <![CDATA]]> markup in the first place, I think, unless you are forced to interface with users who simply Can Not be taught how to use & and <. (But I do agree that we should be handling this better.) ______________________________________ Joe Kesselman, IBM Next-Generation Web Technologies: XML, XSL and more. "may'ron DaroQbe'chugh vaj bIrIQbej" ("Put down the squeezebox and nobody gets hurt.")
