In article <[email protected]>,
Manfred Lotz <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi there,
Let us assume I have the following document t.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<entry>
bla --> more bla
</entry>

Running xmllint t.xml gives a "corrected' output with &gt;. instead of

.

However, xmllint doesn't return a non zero return code which means
(if I understand xmllint correctly) that from xmllint's point of view
the document is well formed.

Question: Is the above document really well formed? Or is it required
to have &gt; instead of '>'?

It's well formed.

There is one circumstance in which you must use &gt; (or a character
reference) instead of >, and that's when it's part of the sequence ]]>
and that sequence is not marking the end of a CDATA section. You're
unlikely to run into this in real life, but many programs always
output &gt; anyway.

-- Richard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi there,
Let us assume I have the following document t.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<entry>
bla --> more bla
</entry>


Running xmllint t.xml gives a "corrected' output with &gt;. instead of

.

However, xmllint doesn't return a non zero return code which means
(if I understand xmllint correctly) that from xmllint's point of view
the document is well formed.

Question: Is the above document really well formed? Or is it required
to have &gt; instead of '>'?

--
Manfred

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 21:07:14 +0000 (UTC)
[email protected] (Richard Tobin) wrote:

In article <[email protected]>,
Manfred Lotz <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi there,
Let us assume I have the following document t.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<entry>
bla --> more bla
</entry>

Running xmllint t.xml gives a "corrected' output with &gt;. instead
of

.

However, xmllint doesn't return a non zero return code which means
(if I understand xmllint correctly) that from xmllint's point of view
the document is well formed.

Question: Is the above document really well formed? Or is it required
to have &gt; instead of '>'?

It's well formed.

Thanks. I thought it is but wasn't 100% sure.

There is one circumstance in which you must use &gt; (or a character reference) instead of >, and that's when it's part of the sequence ]]>
and that sequence is not marking the end of a CDATA section. You're
unlikely to run into this in real life, but many programs always
output &gt; anyway.

Yes, that's an unlikely case in "normal life".

Thanks again, Manfred

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 01/31/2017 04:41 PM, Manfred Lotz wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 21:07:14 +0000 (UTC)
[email protected] (Richard Tobin) wrote:

In article <[email protected]>,
Manfred Lotz <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi there,
Let us assume I have the following document t.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<entry>
bla --> more bla
</entry>


Running xmllint t.xml gives a "corrected' output with &gt;. instead
of

.

However, xmllint doesn't return a non zero return code which means
(if I understand xmllint correctly) that from xmllint's point of view
the document is well formed.

Question: Is the above document really well formed? Or is it required
to have &gt; instead of '>'?

It's well formed.

Thanks. I thought it is but wasn't 100% sure.

There is one circumstance in which you must use &gt; (or a character
reference) instead of >, and that's when it's part of the sequence ]]>
and that sequence is not marking the end of a CDATA section. You're
unlikely to run into this in real life, but many programs always
output &gt; anyway.

Yes, that's an unlikely case in "normal life".

It's really only a consideration for dweebs like me who actually write documentation *about* XML, so we have to be able to show stuff verbatim
that would normally be seen as markup to act on :-)

///Peter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)