W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > October 1996

Re: (Resend) Re: A7: CDATA, RCDATA, TEMP marked sections?

From: Eve L. Maler <elm@arbortext.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 1996 14:04:43 -0400
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961007180443.2b37ec9a@village.doctools.com>
To: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU>, W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
At 11:30 AM 10/7/96 CDT, Michael Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
>On Sun, 6 Oct 1996 19:37:40 -0400 Paul Grosso said:
>>I see no reason for TEMP, and extremely little for RCDATA.  If we decide
>
>Little, but not nil.  I've needed RCDATA when my SGML examples are trying
>to illustrate the syntax of marked sections:  since CDATA marked
>sections can't have nested marked sections within them, one needs
>something like
>
>  <![ RCDATA [
>    This paragraph has one sentence.
>    <![ %conditional [
>    Or two?
>    ]&nil;]>
>  ]]>
>
>The &nil; in the penultimate line prevents the marked section from
>ending prematurely.
>
>To be sure, this is a very rare requirement.  But it is in fact
>reasonably easy to handle, with RCDATA; hence my sense that CDATA and
>RCDATA may as well be handled alike.

Also, if you want the code being demonstrated to be "executable," isn't
it better to declare an external CDATA entity (with a notation in this 
case, say, of "SGML fragment") so that you can change the &nil; back 
to "]" and use/test the entity contents normally?  This also solves
the problem of editing this material in ASCII editors (or, for that
matter, CASE tools).

Of course, this can get tiresome when you have lots of little 
fragments, but that's a convenience argument too, and environments 
can be constructed to ease their management and creation.

        Eve
Received on Monday, 7 October 1996 14:01:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:04 UTC