Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.0 serializer for XML From: Lars Huttar <lars_huttar@xxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:29:56 -0500 |
On 8/19/2010 11:38 AM, Hermann Stamm-Wilbrandt wrote: > | why do you say > must not be escaped? it is safer to escape it 9and > > I just read the spec and '>' is not a must-escape character. > I agree with you that it is better to escape it and I did it in > LtGtAmp template (xml-to-string does not escape '>'). > I think we had a non-native-speaker miscommunication. HSW said, > While '<' and '&' must be escaped, '>' must not. Which DC (correctly as a native English speaker) interpreted to mean a *prohibition* on escaping '>'. But apparently you meant > While '<' and '&' must be escaped, '>' does not have to be. indicating a *lack of obligation*. Apologies for the non-intuitive semantics of "must not" vs. "doesn't have to" in English. http://www.english-the-international-language.com/rules.html Lars
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.0 serializer for X, Hermann Stamm-Wilbra | Thread | [xsl] Xpath question with processin, Ylvisaker, Steve |
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.0 serializer for X, David Carlisle | Date | [xsl] Xpath question with processin, Ylvisaker, Steve |
Month |