On 7.7.2013 22:12, Yves Savourel wrote:
> c) If the CDATA option is the proper technical thing to do, we should probably go for that even if it gives us quite a bit of extra work.
This issue is not technical decision -- to boil it down: we must decide
whether ITS processing of XHTML should be more aligned with XML or with
HTML.
It's unlikely to reach unanimous agreement here -- vendors of XML tools
would argue that XHTML is using XML syntax and thus any embeded markup
should be included as is (ie. not escaped using CDATA sections).
Where vendors of HTML tools would likely argue that XHTML processing
should be as much aligned with HTML as possible and thus embeded ITS
markup should be escaped, so unescaping (additional parsing step) should
be done both in HTML and XHTML.
Both parties have point, I don't think that there is win-win solution.
Because of this I would recommend to keep the current approach. Doing
otherwise we will just shift pain to different place.
Personally I can most lightly live with special rules for HTML as HTML
parsing is already full of quirks (Did you know that <br></br> would
produce two br elements in DOM? -
http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%3Cbr%3E%3C%2Fbr%3E).
Jirka
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jirka Kosek e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
Professional XML consulting and training services
DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 rep.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bringing you XML Prague conference http://xmlprague.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 7 July 2013 21:30:30 UTC