Re: < vs. >

[Ali Abdin <ALIABDIN aucegypt edu>]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Kenny Graunke wrote:

> 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 &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
> > 
> > I agree with Ali.
> > 
> > My take is simple. Which of these looks more symmetrical and consistent
> > and makes more sense to new folk?
> > 
> >   &lt;something>
> >   &lt;something&gt;
> > 
> > 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 &gt;) as well, since it *is* valid, and we
> may not update all docs before GNOME 1.4. Using &gt; looks better, but might
> not warrant immediate changes to all docs... :)

I did this, but then I removed the code before I commited it. I prefer to 
leave it as-is for now (so people can convert their docs), and then I 
could put in this behavior.