Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Richard Tobin <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 23:52:21 +0100
> Yes I know that the ampersands should have been escaped technically,
Why "technically"? If it wasn't meant to be an entity reference, the
document is just plain wrong. If it *is* meant to be an entity reference,
why is it any stranger than, say,
<[128K of name characters]/>
or any of the other places where a name occurs?
> but how many parsers would blow up in this situation trying to
> buffer up that much text?
It's tempting to use fixed-size buffers for such things, but when I've
done that in the past it's usually turned out to be a mistake.
Have you found parsers that "blow up" in this case?
Of course, an implementation is perfectly free to warn about absurdly
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)