Chris Karakas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Andreas Vox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 20.10.04 19:25:22:
> > 
> > 
> > Oh BTW, Chris, if you read this: 
> > what happens if the user activates '&' for names? 

> The user will get the & character in a label and the SGML parser will 
> complain that some "entity XYZ not defined", I guess.
> But you know my stand on this: the user used "&" in a label, the user
> has to draw all consequences of his action. The parser will
> complain, the user will have a look into the exported SGML file,
> the user will recognize his mistake and will correct it.

'&' and '"' will be mangled unless the user explicitly named them
in "allowedNameChars".
If the user allowed them, they will still be replaced by & and " 
since otherwise the resulting file would not be parsable.

> We now have
> 
> The user asked for "this", but he got "that" with a warning.
> 
> which I have agreed to as a compromise.

 
> BTW, I had such problems with "<" and ">" in URL texts.
> The parser would complain "entity XYZ not defined", I would
> check the SGML file and say to myself "but of course!", then
> go to the URL text and enter "& lt ;" instead of "<" - and 
> everything would be fine.

Since '&', '<', '>' and '"' are part of the DocBook syntax we will
escape them whereever they could be interpreted as SGML/XML.

If you want to use SGML markup, you can use a LyX SGML layout
for it. '<' and '>' shouldn't have any effect in attributes, so they are
allowed there.
I don't know if there is a clean way to use  explicit entities in IDs or 
other attributes. If one day LyX reads back Docbook files, they
would be replaced, so there wouldn't be a roundtrip experience,
which is bad.
So the only clean way is to put the whole element in a LyX
SGML layout, then entities in attributes aren't a problem.

I'm aware that this is not what you want, but I'm afraid you wont
convince a majority to do otherwise. :-)

If you have an important use case which needs unescaped '&' or
'"' in atrribute values, tell us and we'll think of a solution.

Cheers
/Andreas

Reply via email to