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.
Per Bothner scripsit:
> I've changed my mind, and I disagree. I looked at the specifications for
> "XML literals" in XQuery and ECMAScript for XML, and as far as I can tell,
> both allow ">" without even mentioning the "]]>" issue.
Okay, that convinces me.
> The characters & and < are special and need to be escaped.
>
> The character > does not have to be escaped, but it is good style
> to always do so, as it makes it easier to visually distinguish it
> from markup. (The MicroXML proposal does not even allow unquoted >.)
> If an XML-node value containing > in element or attribute content
> is written, an implementation *should* write the escaped form >.
> The XML and HTML 4.x standards do not allow the literal text ]]> in
> element content, for historical reasons of SGML-compatibility. For
> this reason an implementation of this specification *may* warn if
> literal ]]> is seen.
I'm okay with that, provided you add "and *must* write the escaped form
]]> if the XML is written", since that is no longer the domain of XML
literals but of XML itself.
--
How they ever reached any conclusion at all <cowan@xxxxxxxx>
is starkly unknowable to the human mind. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
--"Backstage Lensman", Randall Garrett