Subject: Re: sgml cleanup: unescaped '>' characters
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com>, pgsql-docs
	<pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <201109011417.p81EHWI14035@momjian.us>
References: <201109011417.p81EHWI14035@momjian.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 21:14:53 +0300
Message-ID: <1314900893.8596.0.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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 <.