Hi Yves,
Thanks for letting me know the preferred operating procedure. I'll add my proposal to the requirements section.
And regarding your reply to my stated preference for identifying escaping XML markup as *not a best practice*:
Bryan >> Oh, and I'd really love it if we could discourage escaping
>> XML code (like:
>>
Yves > . . . frankly
> I don't know how we could represent '<' in
> XML content as anything but some kind of
> escaped sequence.
I am not objecting to the practice of preserving code. I am specifically objecting to the practice of escaping XML markup. Escaping XML markup (yippy) is nothing but syntactic sugar. Or more exactly, syntactic saccharin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_sugar#Syntactic_saccharin). Omitting the escaped XML (in this example) is no less clear (
