Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> What you presumably meant was "what would you consider the proper type
> for (P)CDATA?"
No, I mean the whole thing, including all the <...> tags
etc. Like you see when you load an XML file into a text
editor. (BTW, doesn't the fact that you *can* load an
XML file into what we call a "text editor" say something?)
> nobody but authors of
> wire drivers[2] and introspective code will need to _explicitly_ call
> .encode('base64').
Even a wire driver writer will only need it if he's
trying to turn a text wire into a binary wire, as
far as I can see.
--
Greg
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4