- From: Daniel Sullivan <dsullivan@danal.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 06:46:01 -0600
- To: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- CC: "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
I also don't see the value in banning >. Banning > means that you don't have the option of rearranging a simple comparison so that it does not have any encoded characters in it. Also a lot of people actually do know the > is allowed in XML and banning will confuse the people who made the most effort to understand the details of xml :-). -----Original Message----- From: David Lee [mailto:David.Lee@marklogic.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 7:34 AM To: Andrew Welch; David Carlisle Cc: public-microxml@w3.org Subject: RE: > in attribute values; decimal character reference 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 12:47:10 UTC