Re: Final comments, mostly editorial John Cowan 07 Dec 2013 19:24 UTC
Per Bothner scripsit (reordered): > Still mulling how to handle "]]>". > > Perhaps a warning is a reasonable compromise. In the SRFI, perhaps > we could add: > > The XML and HTML standards (up through HTML 4.x) do not allow the > literal text > "]]> in element content - instead it should be escaped as in "]]>". > This is for historical reasons of SGML-compatibility. > An implementation SHOULD warn if literal "]]>" is seen. Strengthen this to "MUST warn" and I can live with it, though I would still prefer to make it an error. > >>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. > > I don't understand what you mean by "when translated into actual XML". > If an xml-constructor containing "]]>" in element content I wasn't addressing "]]>" at this point, but SRFI 109. On reflection, however, the line continuation, indentation, and comment features only remove things rather than adding them, and so are fairly harmless. I continue to be opposed to special syntax for formats, because I am opposed to formats altogether, but since they are optional I don't really care. > Note the ">" is serialized as ">" in the Print part of the REPL. Be sure to serialize explicit newlines as "
" (or the equivalent) in attribute values, too. -- Take two turkeys, one goose, four John Cowan cabbages, but no duck, and mix them http://www.ccil.org/~cowan together. After one taste, you'll duck firstname.lastname@example.org soup the rest of your life. --Groucho