Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > >> as well as seemingly-invalid SGML, such as using '>' unescaped inside > > >> normal SGML entries. > > > > > > Unescaped > is valid, AFAIK. > > > > Oh, that's interesting. I took a quick look at "The SGML FAQ book", > > page 73 [1], which supports this claim. > > > > But I notice we've been fixing such issues in the recent past (e.g. > > commit d420ba2a2d4ea4831f89a3fd7ce86b05eff932ff). Don't we want to > > continue doing so? Not to mention the fact that we have > > ./src/tools/find_gt_lt, which while somewhat broken, has the > > ostensible goal of finding such problems in the SGML. Or do we want to > > stop worrying about '>' entirely, and rename find_gt_lt to find_lt, > > instead? > > > [1] > > http://books.google.com/books?id=OyJHFJsnh10C&lpg=PA229&ots=DGkYDdvbhE&pg=PA73#v=onepage&q&f=false > > I don't know what the rationale for this tool is. I have never used it. > Clearly, the reference shows, and the tools we use confirm, that it is > not necessary to use it.
I have updated the scripts and instructions accordingly. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
