• From: Paul Prescod <papresco@t...>
• To: "xml-dev@i..." <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 09:36:54 -0500

Jarle Stabell wrote:
> BTW: Do people think XML parsers generally will/should complain about a ]]> when it for *compatibility* should be ]]> ?

I think that they should. This requirement seems strange at first, but
it stops mistakes like the one you made. You can never accidently make a
CDATA marked section end be content.

> I assume the reasons for *not* allowing "if x<>nil then doSomething" as legal content is because it is better for users that & and < are consistently not allowed for anything than markup, but I'm not convinced about this.
> (At least it seems trivial for parsers to check this situation)

Parser writers are rebelling at the number of trivial things that they
must manage.

 Paul Prescod

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • RE: ]]> within a CDATA marked section ?
    • From: Jarle Stabell <jarle.stabell@d...>

• Prev by Date: A Personnal XML release of the TEI Lite DTD
• Next by Date: Re: EMBED and validation
• Previous by thread: RE: ]]> within a CDATA marked section ?
• Next by thread: Re: ]]> within a CDATA marked section ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread