Subject: RE: [xsl] CDATA Handling From: "Michael Kay" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:08:25 -0000 |
> I'll probably regret this suggestion. No one has mentioned an > alternative possibility (still bad architecturally, just not > quite as bad as using CDATA delimiters): use non-XML "markup" > (text) to delimit the images. > > <x>See following image: TARTIMAGE##abcde##ENDIMAGE##</x> > Why use non-XML markup? Processing instructions do the same job better. I always feel a bit nervous about using processing instructions when I want to add some markup without changing the DTD. But it's a practical technique that works (much better than CDATA sections). I don't feel too bad about it if the PI really is being used as an "instruction" (to a stylesheet) to do some "processing". And there are cases where (for better or for worse) getting the DTD changed really isn't an option. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] CDATA Handling, Evan Lenz | Thread | Re: [xsl] CDATA Handling, Evan Lenz |
Re: [xsl] CDATA Handling, Evan Lenz | Date | Re: [xsl] CDATA Handling, Evan Lenz |
Month |