Re: SDATA, again

>I take the point, but given that I think the arguments against SDATA are
>specious, I feel compelled to drag us through the damn thing one more time.
>We don't have to pick an optimal solution to significantly improve XML, in
>this case; we don't lose compatibility with SGML as defined, and actually
>retain it with SGML as practiced.

I agree with David here. Even though there are other ways of doing much
the same thing, I favor SDATA over all alternatives, and it doesn't cost
much to add it to the XML spec.