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.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
