]]> within a CDATA marked section ?

[Paul Prescod]

Jarle Stabell wrote:
> BTW: Do people think XML parsers generally will/should complain about a ]]> when it for *compatibility* should be ]]> ?

I think that they should. This requirement seems strange at first, but
it stops mistakes like the one you made. You can never accidently make a
CDATA marked section end be content.

> I assume the reasons for *not* allowing "if x<>nil then doSomething" as legal content is because it is better for users that & and < are consistently not allowed for anything than markup, but I'm not convinced about this.
> (At least it seems trivial for parsers to check this situation)

Parser writers are rebelling at the number of trivial things that they
must manage.

 Paul Prescod

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)