- From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:25:45 +0100
- To: public-html@w3.org
2007/12/10, Karl Dubost: > > Le 9 déc. 2007 à 17:03, j.j. a écrit : > > CON > > <xmp><![CDATA[ XHTML needs CDATA section. ]]></xmp> > > 1. that makes it more difficult to go from HTML to XHTML format to the > other. Agreed. However, it should be supported at the parser level for backwards compatibility (it already is). > 3. You can't use xmp inside xmp > <!DOCTYPE html> > <html> > <title>boo</title> > <xmp> Using <xmp>html code</xmp> to show the source code</xmp> > </html> > Rendered view: > Using <xmp>html code to show the source code Not convinced. Same as CDATA sections in XML: <![CDATA[Using a <![CDATA[CDATA section]]> to show the source code]]> Parsed as: Using <[CDATA[CDATA section to show the source code ]]> You'd have to write: <xmp>Using <xmp>html code</</xmp>xmp<xmp>> to show the source code</xmp> (and variations around those lines) similar to the following in XML: <![CDATA[Using a <![CDATA[CDATA section]]>]]><![CDATA[ to show the source code]]> That being said, I'm really not convinced that XMP is needed at all: you only have to do a search/replace for & to & (you're already doing it anyway) and < to < (other characters don't need any special treatment). That XMP be supported in the parser, yes, for backwards compatibility, but made compliant ?! (Regarding j.j.'s arguments: if XMP is given the same semantics as <pre><code> (first of his arguments), then the following two arguments don't apply, and vice versa; having an element with varying semantics depending on the attributes used is IMO a Bad Thing; we already have it with <a name=> vs. <a href=> and <a name=> is actually being replaced with "any element with an id attribute") -- Thomas Broyer
Received on Monday, 10 December 2007 09:26:00 UTC