Re: < vs. >
- From: Kenny Graunke <kwg teleport com>
- To: GDP <gnome-doc-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: < vs. >
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 01:58:07 -0700
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 09:44:10AM +0100 or thereabouts, Telsa Gwynne wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:41:45AM +0300 or thereabouts, Ali Abdin wrote:
> > Using > /IS/ valid XML - either way, (according to Owen) it is Valid
> > XML. I think using < for '<' and '>' for '>' is inconsistent behavior.
> > '>' should be used for '>' - You might as well do this now when you
> > are updating your docs for GNOME 1.4
>
> I agree with Ali.
>
> My take is simple. Which of these looks more symmetrical and consistent
> and makes more sense to new folk?
>
> <something>
> <something>
>
> With the second form, I can see where I am. It's.. prettier :)
>
> Telsa
I agree with Ali and Telsa, this is less confusing and looks better. However,
I think it would be a good idea to have the software (gnome-db2html2, etc.) to
support the first (translate it to >) as well, since it *is* valid, and we
may not update all docs before GNOME 1.4. Using > looks better, but might
not warrant immediate changes to all docs... :)
Kenny
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]
