]]> within a CDATA marked section ?
jjc at jclark.com
Thu Nov 27 23:17:17 GMT 1997
Jarle Stabell wrote:
> BTW: Do people think XML parsers generally will/should complain about a ]]> when it for *compatibility* should be ]]> ?
> (Or do I misinterpret the draft text:
> 'and must for compatibility, be escaped using ">" or a character reference when it appears in the string "]]>", when that string is not marking the end of a CDATA section'
> Does it mean that the user should better use ">" to be compatible with SGML, or that the XML parser should report this as an error if not escaped using ">"?)
A conforming XML parser *must* report this as an error. "For
compatibility" just gives the rationale for the requirement; it doesn't
lessen the requirement on parsers to report the error. The spec's
definition of "for compatibility" makes this clear:
A feature of XML included solely to ensure that XML remains
compatible with SGML.
Note that "for compatibility" is quite different from "for
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;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev