Yea, cdata is a traditional way in XML. XMPP seems not prefer CDATA. I don’t know what's the detailed reason. But I think CDATA has its advantage sometimes.
Regards .:|:.:|:. Field Tian | CCATG HF Software Engineer | +8655166111136 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthew Wild Sent: 2013年10月11日 9:08 To: XMPP Standards Subject: Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: JSON Containers Hi, On 11 October 2013 01:50, Field Tian (fitian) <[email protected]> wrote: > If wrap json directly, we need to do xml escape, It is boring. or > XML Parser cannot parse the follow message(I put <x> into the value of > status). It might be boring, but any XML/XMPP library will be able to do this for you already. I really hope XMPP developers aren't manually XML escaping in their day-to-day work - I know I'm not :) > Why not use the traditional way? For example, to extend an element > called <cdata>, then whatever type of message can be put into. Please comment! It's definitely not "traditional" to use cdata in XMPP. I would worry about interoperability problems, and I don't think how you escape the data (through entities or cdata) is within the scope of this XEP anyway. Regards, Matthew
