RE: > in attribute values; decimal character reference

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