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 &gt;
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 15:02:21 +0000
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <efot3tFqi6sU1@mid.individual.net>
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

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 &gt;. 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 &gt; 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 &gt; (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 &gt; 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