Per Bothner scripsit:

> Right now SRFI-107's syntax for xml-constructor is a superset of the
> corresponding syntax for XML. That would no longer be true if we required
> ">" to be always quoted.

True.  So align SRFI-107 with XML.  It makes the definition a hair
longer, but nobody said XML was a trivial standard.

> I'm inclined to think you're right, but I don't see any benefit in
> adding a restriction to prohibit "SRFI 109 constructs" in attribute values
> - it would seem to make the rules and syntax more complicated, just to
> reduce flexibility, without any obvious benefit.

I'm primarily concerned that, when translated into actual XML, it won't
have the effects that people think it will have.

--
Cash registers don't really add and subtract;           John Cowan
        they only grind their gears.                    xxxxxx@ccil.org
But then they don't really grind their gears, either;
        they only obey the laws of physics.  --Unknown