Re: Final comments, mostly editorial John Cowan 08 Dec 2013 23:23 UTC

Per Bothner scripsit:

> I've changed my mind, and I disagree.  I looked at the specifications for
> "XML literals" in XQuery and ECMAScript for XML, and as far as I can tell,
> both allow ">" without even mentioning the "]]>" issue.

Okay, that convinces me.

>   The characters & and < are special and need to be escaped.
>   The character > does not have to be escaped, but it is good style
>   to always do so, as it makes it easier to visually distinguish it
>   from markup.  (The MicroXML proposal does not even allow unquoted >.)
>   If an XML-node value containing > in element or attribute content
>   is written, an implementation *should* write the escaped form &gt;.
>   The XML and HTML 4.x standards do not allow the literal text ]]> in
>   element content, for historical reasons of SGML-compatibility. For
>   this reason an implementation of this specification *may* warn if
>   literal ]]> is seen.

I'm okay with that, provided you add "and *must* write the escaped form
]]&gt; if the XML is written", since that is no longer the domain of XML
literals but of XML itself.

How they ever reached any conclusion at all     <>
is starkly unknowable to the human mind.
        --"Backstage Lensman", Randall Garrett