Re: < vs. >

[Ali Abdin <ALIABDIN aucegypt edu>]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Dan Mueth wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Ali Abdin wrote:
> 
> > * Owen Taylor (otaylor redhat com) wrote at 22:16 on 09/09/00:
> > > 
> > > Ali Abdin <aliabdin aucegypt edu> writes:
> > > 
> > > > It appears that in some docs (GDP Handbook) instead of '<' you have &lt; -
> > > > This is correct of course - but it appears that you use '>' instead of &gt;
> > > > 
> > > > I think all docs should convert the '>' symbol to the &gt; entity (of course
> > > > this only applies to the parts /in between/ the tags - not the tags
> > > > themselves).
> > > 
> > > I think it is more elegant to use &gt;, but it is not required
> > > for XML or SGML except in in the sequence ']]>' (See the XML spec,
> > > section 2.4)
> > 
> > Thanks for pointing this out :) 
> > 
> > For consistencies sake we should all use &gt; in docs instead of '>' unless
> > somebody has soem compelling reason not to (this should be done during the
> > revision of docs for GNOME 1.4)
> 
> Is there some reason that we should not use '>'?  It is easier to use,
> valid XML, and already used in the documents.  Thus, if we don't have a
> *very* compelling reason to go through our many documents and change all
> of the occurances of '>', I'd rather not.

Using &gt; /IS/ valid XML - either way, (according to Owen) it is Valid 
XML. I think using &lt; for '<' and '>' for '>' is inconsistent behavior. 
'&gt;' should be used for '>' - You might as well do this now when you 
are updating your docs for GNOME 1.4

Also - using '>' instead of &gt; is not valid HTML I believe (which is 
what happens in gnome-db2html2). This is according to an application I 
got called 'weblint' - This does not cause fatal errors though (although 
I once forgot a '>' on a TABLE tag and it rendered correctly).

Regards,
Ali