Final comments, mostly editorial
John Cowan
(27 Nov 2013 23:59 UTC)
|
Re: Final comments, mostly editorial
Per Bothner
(28 Nov 2013 03:52 UTC)
|
Re: Final comments, mostly editorial
John Cowan
(28 Nov 2013 04:07 UTC)
|
Re: Final comments, mostly editorial
John Cowan
(28 Nov 2013 04:10 UTC)
|
Re: Final comments, mostly editorial
Per Bothner
(28 Nov 2013 04:46 UTC)
|
Re: Final comments, mostly editorial
John Cowan
(28 Nov 2013 04:51 UTC)
|
Re: Final comments, mostly editorial
Per Bothner
(07 Dec 2013 01:24 UTC)
|
Re: Final comments, mostly editorial
John Cowan
(07 Dec 2013 19:24 UTC)
|
Re: Final comments, mostly editorial Per Bothner (08 Dec 2013 08:37 UTC)
|
Re: Final comments, mostly editorial
John Cowan
(08 Dec 2013 17:13 UTC)
|
Re: Final comments, mostly editorial
Per Bothner
(08 Dec 2013 20:27 UTC)
|
Re: Final comments, mostly editorial
John Cowan
(08 Dec 2013 23:23 UTC)
|
On 12/07/2013 11:24 AM, John Cowan wrote: > 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 don't think it is possible to require warnings in a Scheme specification. Consider a program calling read then eval. There is no place for warnings to be displayed. -- --Per Bothner xxxxxx@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/