- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:19:16 -0800
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Jan 17, 2006, at 12:48 PM, Chris Lilley wrote: > Hello www-svg, > > Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> writes: > >> The one <script> example encloses the script body on <![CDATA >> [ ... ]]>, but none of the <handler> examples do. Is this meant to >> imply a meaningful difference in either content model or recommended >> best practices for <script> and <handler>? If not, then either the >> difference should be either removed or the reason for its presence >> should be explained. > > CDATA marked sections are a standard part of XML; all XML parsers will > handle them. The advantage is that < " & etc are not treated > specially, > only the end of marked section ]]> is significant. > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-cdata-sect > > Elements cannot be declared with a CDATA content model. > > The choice of whether to enclose script blocks in CDATA marked > sections, > or to escape troublesome characters like < and & as < & > individually, is up to the document author. This is really not a big deal, but it seems completely arbitrary that the spec uses CDATA for all <script> elements and not for any <handler> elements. There's nothing in the contents of any of the scripts that would cause CDATA to make a difference. I think it would be better to either always use CDATA, or only when needed. But I am satisfied with no change, since this is purely an editorial matter. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 03:19:25 UTC