On Jul 25, 2012, at 14:59 , Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Jul 25, 2012, at 14:54 , Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> This seems like a very bad idea when I have this in a comment: >>>> >>>> <em>0<i</em> >>>> >>>> If you expand the '<', you end up with invalid HTML. Entities are >>>> supposed to be entities when they come out the other end. >>> >>> '<' will be expanded in the internal representation. HTML renderer >>> will escape HTML special characters back. >> >> …as long as my test case is emitted unchanged, I don't mind, but I think >> it's non-trivial to expand entities in "<em>0<i</em>" and keep track of >> which "<" are supposed to be escaped. > > '<em>' is a separate AST node and "0<i" is (three) plain text nodes, > so it is actually simple. > > Added your example to tests. Oh right. Forgot you were already lexing HTML. Okay, once again sorry for the noise. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
