- From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 16:50:36 -0500 (EST)
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
>From: Len Bullard <cbullard@HiWAAY.net>
>W. Eliot Kimber wrote:
>>
>> <P>Your IP address is <SERVER>write(request.ip)</SERVER>
>> <SERVER>write(
>> <![CDATA["<p>Last time your were " + client.oldname + "."]])</SERVER>
>
>Yep. Now, what is the short sweet clear language that tells
>the executive why he must require his programmers or IS specialists
>to switch to this when what they have looks a lot like this
>and is working? What do we say when he says, "But my browser
>vendor says this is 'stupid', slows down the system, and they
>will never support it"? How do we convince him that it is
>worth the extra money and considerable risk to move off of
>working platforms onto other platforms just to get closed
>tags, obscure syntax, and fatter files?
I think we don't have to. See below.
>Not kidding. That example above goes to the heart of what XML does and
>can bring to the party, and the mood of the host.
You are certainly right about the mood, but there is also a lot of
frustration with fixed tag sets, and there is fortunately alternative markup
that is nicer and easier to explain:
<P>Your IP address is <SERVER>write(request.ip)</SERVER>
<SERVER>write("<p>Last time your were " + client.oldname + ".")</SERVER>
Sorry I missed the syntax error the first time I read it... I agree that
this is a bit inconvenient, but I think people will be willing to put up
with this to avoid entrapment in the straightjacket of HTML.
All you need to say is that < is a delimiter and needs escaping whenever it
does not start a tag.
I don't know why (or if) Eliot prefers CDATA.
-- David
Received on Thursday, 30 January 1997 16:51:03 UTC