> BTW: Do people think XML parsers generally will/should complain about a ]]> when it for *compatibility* should be ]]> ?
> (Or do I misinterpret the draft text:
>
> 'and must for compatibility, be escaped using ">" or a character reference when it appears in the string "]]>", when that string is not marking the end of a CDATA section'
>
> Does it mean that the user should better use ">" to be compatible with SGML, or that the XML parser should report this as an error if not escaped using ">"?)
A conforming XML parser *must* report this as an error. "For
compatibility" just gives the rationale for the requirement; it doesn't
lessen the requirement on parsers to report the error. The spec's
definition of "for compatibility" makes this clear:
for compatibility
A feature of XML included solely to ensure that XML remains
compatible with SGML.
Note that "for compatibility" is quite different from "for
interoperability".
James