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 <.
