On December 21, 2019 12:32:03 PM GMT+01:00, Andrew Nenakhov <[email protected]> wrote: >сб, 21 дек. 2019 г. в 16:21, Ralph Meijer <[email protected]>: > >> Just making sure everyone has the same interpretation: >> >> Case 1) The text has the sequence ]]>. In this case, in XML the > >MUST be >> escaped (with >, or equivalent character reference). >> Case 2) All occurances of > not preceded by ]]. Here > MAY appear >as-is, >> or escaped. Both are valid. >> > >Well. We diverge here, and read it differently. MUST be escaped clause >uses >AND, it's is not optiona. The reason it MUST be escaped is _for >compatibility_, and we are in a compatibility game, aren't we?
If this were the case, there'd be no reason for having the 'may' earlier in the sentence. The compatibility clause refers to case 1 above. FWIW, it would be entirely possible to detect when you're in a CDATA section or not, but the authors chose to make it explicit that you must escape > for this case. I am going to assume this is an artifact of XML's SGML ancestry and this rule is to make parsing easier. So, having unescaped > is valid for case 2, and serializers may choose to do so. -- Cheers, ralphm _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
