On tor, 2011-09-01 at 10:17 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > 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.
That still leaves open why we bother about escaping <. -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
