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

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

From: Robert Streich <streich@slb.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 03:04:23 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0b26.32.19961009030032.0070b4e4@austin.sar.slb.com>
To: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU>
Cc: 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

I agree. If you're going to have one then why not both. If you are going
to do away with CDATA/RCDATA elements, then you have to have CDATA/RCDATA
marked sections.

I still prefer the element variety since they are much easier for people
to use and I'd prefer to not even have to address marked sections at all.
Don't use 'em now (in instances), don't want to in the future. Just don't
want to have people sticking in CDATA/RCDATA everywhere they feel like.
I can control this with elements, not with marked sections. Since I'm
beginning to see XML as a down-translation more and more, however, I find
I'm less interested in arguing this point.

TEMP should go away.


Robert Streich				streich@slb.com
Schlumberger				voice: 1 512 331 3318
Austin Research				fax:   1 512 331 3760
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 1996 04:12:21 UTC

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