- From: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 04:33:46 -0700
- To: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- CC: "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
Devils advocate: In what way is adding a new character that is banned easier to explain ? In what way is adding ">" a consistency issue for "<" ? Because the glyphs look similar in the mirror ? It is true I have had people insist in encoding ">" because they assumed it was needed ... but there was never any great harm in that. Where is the harm in allowing ">" ? What is it making easier ? On 5 September 2012 09:47, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> wrote: > > I would ban > in attribute values, for consistency with < and with > banning > in element content. +1 one less caveat or thing to explain, or for people to correct each other about on xml-dev :) -- Andrew Welch http://andrewjwelch.com
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2012 11:41:05 UTC