Re: Two more points for cleanup in existing draft
At 7:35 PM 3/27/97, Peter Flynn wrote:
>At 12:00 21/03/97 +0000, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>>unsatisfactory. '[P]arsed character data' is misleading, since by the
>>syntax PCData cannot contain references!
>I've been campaigning for years for the phrase "parsable character data",
>ie char data which it makes sense to parse (because it may contain markup)
>as opposed to CDATA which there is no point in parsing because it can't.
But there is no markup remaining in PCDATA--it's data that remains after
the parsing process. I'd argue more that "CDATA" is misleading. One must
still scan/"parse" for the terminating delimiter; there's just a much
smaller choice. And then there's CDATA attributes....