Re: Cougar DTD: Do not use CDATA declared content for SCRIPT

Ka-Ping Yee (kpyee@aw.sgi.com)
Mon, 29 Jul 1996 14:39:07 +0900


Message-Id: <31FC4E7B.6956@aw.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 14:39:07 +0900
From: Ka-Ping Yee <kpyee@aw.sgi.com>
To: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
Cc: Ka-Ping Yee <kpyee@aw.sgi.com>, www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: Cougar DTD: Do not use CDATA declared content for SCRIPT

David Perrell wrote:
> 
> You consider the options from a practical point of view. A practical
> point of view would include the option already implemented:
> 
> What's the likelihood of finding "</script>" in a script?
>     Let's just say, as is the case now, that it can't be there.

Yes, i am basically saying that this option "doesn't count".
Why not?  Because it cannot be valid SGML, as far as i can tell.

(If you would rather throw SGML out the window, that is another issue.)

Keep in mind that SGML compliance is not just some kind of pointless
dance or an entirely academic endeavour.  It is tangibly useful for
documents to be valid SGML.  I think that more and more people will
demand a level of confidence in document integrity (which we are
currently lacking) that validity can provide, especially as HTML
and its applications become more complex.

> My problem with the explicitly marked section thing is that the
> <script></script> pair already marks an element with a particular type
> of content. Additional markup is redundant.

I can see the value of minimalism.  But in this case, the disruption
is too great.  The script is dangerous to drop in the middle of HTML
in the first place, and it needs better protection, so to speak.  The
fact that it is an entirely different type of information justifies
marking it up as such -- on a level beyond HTML tags, i.e. with an
SGML marked section.


Ping