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

David Perrell (
Mon, 29 Jul 1996 16:39:40 -0700

Message-Id: <>
From: "David Perrell" <>
To: "Ka-Ping Yee" <>
Cc: <>
Subject: Re: Cougar DTD: Do not use CDATA declared content for SCRIPT
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 16:39:40 -0700

Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> (If you would rather throw SGML out the window, that is another
> 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.

I don't argue for throwing SGML out the window. But neither should it
be considered a stone tablet sent from God. The idea that a language
can be barred from evolution should remain in the realm of French
jokes. It seems to me that, conceptually, a script is the type of
content CDATA should be appropriate for, and ease of parsing aside, I
don't see the logic of the first ETAGO as a delimiter.

> 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.

This reminds me of arguments for state-sponsored gambling (yeah, I
know, voters tend to approve state-sponsored gambling). If scripts are
dangerous, perhaps it is wrong to condone them at all.

David Perrell

BTW, I find it interesting that the use of marked sections was
initially presented as a possible solution to the backward
compatibility issue (WD-script-960228)