On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 17:22 +0400, Sergei Golovan wrote: > On 7/31/07, Mickaël Rémond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello, > > Le 31 juil. 07 à 13:58, Mridul a écrit : > > > >> Not sure where the confusion was ... I always assumed that support for > >> CDATA was a given since it is just another xml construct. > > > > So am I. I have been surprise by the heated debate :) > > The main mistake you did (and probably the only mistake, because CDATA > is indeed a valid XML construct) is that you BREAK THINGS. > > Since NO software used CDATA before there's certainly some which will break. > > I don't know about others but personally I don't like uncertainty and > I don't like to search over the software after upgrade to find why it > stops working. > > I would say that ejabberd is not a tool to convince (force?) people to > use clients/servers with full XML parser. Developing it one must try > to keep it compatible with clients and not break them.
So, just because some software took short-cuts in their development we can't use features in a protocol that haven't seen much use before now. What an odd stance. -- Groetjes, ralphm
