[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Final comments, mostly editorial

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 107 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 107 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

On 11/27/2013 08:07 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Well, at the moment, any SRFI 107 xml-literal that doesn't contain
an enclosed-expression or a SRFI 109 construct (support for which is
optional) is well-formed XML, *except* if it contains the sequence "]]>"
in character content

*or* if it contains a name-less end-tag.

That's a pointless exception.

I think the name-less end-tag is a bigger exception.

MicroXML, which is very close to xml-literals except for not allowing
namespaces, uses the rule that *every* ">" in character content must be
escaped.  I'd be happy if xml-literals adopted that rule.

Right now SRFI-107's syntax for xml-constructor is a superset of the
corresponding syntax for XML. That would no longer be true if we required
">" to be always quoted.

By the way, I don't think SRFI 109 constructs really make sense in
attribute values.  In XML, all newline characters in attribute values
are replaced by the parser with spaces anyway (though this is not true
in MicroXML), and most XML applications blow away leading and trailing
spaces and reduce runs of spaces to a single space.

I'm inclined to think you're right, but I don't see any benefit in
adding a restriction to prohibit "SRFI 109 constructs" in attribute values
- it would seem to make the rules and syntax more complicated, just to
reduce flexibility, without any obvious benefit.
	--Per Bothner
per@xxxxxxxxxxx   http://per.bothner.com/