Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register
| Path | csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie> |
| Newsgroups | comp.text.xml |
| Subject | Re: > or > |
| Date | Sun, 5 Feb 2017 15:02:21 +0000 |
| Lines | 47 |
| Message-ID | <efot3tFqi6sU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <20170130213323.44a3c525@arcor.com> <o6o9u2$2cid$1@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk> <20170131174113.39dcff2b@arcor.com> |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=windows-1252 |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 7bit |
| X-Trace | individual.net lvFiUDJlpFPdvntILuwOHQuZocMENKLS4aKNvS5t3mKv6Kh0e7 |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:J0dSP87WAbR61NXw1NiaQMzUSnI= |
| User-Agent | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 |
| In-Reply-To | <20170131174113.39dcff2b@arcor.com> |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.text.xml:880 |
Show key headers only | View raw
On 01/31/2017 04:41 PM, Manfred Lotz wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 21:07:14 +0000 (UTC) > richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote: > >> In article <20170130213323.44a3c525@arcor.com>, >> Manfred Lotz <manfred.lotz@arcor.de> wrote: >>> Hi there, >>> Let us assume I have the following document t.xml >>> >>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> >>> <entry> >>> bla --> more bla >>> </entry> >>> >>> >>> Running xmllint t.xml gives a "corrected' output with >. instead >>> of >>>> . >>> >>> However, xmllint doesn't return a non zero return code which means >>> (if I understand xmllint correctly) that from xmllint's point of view >>> the document is well formed. >>> >>> Question: Is the above document really well formed? Or is it required >>> to have > instead of '>'? >> >> It's well formed. >> > > Thanks. I thought it is but wasn't 100% sure. > >> There is one circumstance in which you must use > (or a character >> reference) instead of >, and that's when it's part of the sequence ]]> >> and that sequence is not marking the end of a CDATA section. You're >> unlikely to run into this in real life, but many programs always >> output > anyway. >> > > Yes, that's an unlikely case in "normal life". It's really only a consideration for dweebs like me who actually write documentation *about* XML, so we have to be able to show stuff verbatim that would normally be seen as markup to act on :-) ///Peter
Back to comp.text.xml | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar
> or > Manfred Lotz <manfred.lotz@arcor.de> - 2017-01-30 21:33 +0100
Re: > or > richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2017-01-30 21:07 +0000
Re: > or > Manfred Lotz <manfred.lotz@arcor.de> - 2017-01-31 17:41 +0100
Re: > or > Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie> - 2017-02-05 15:02 +0000
csiph-web