Quoting Evan Lenz :

> I've gotten used to typing &lt; for "<", but it helps that there's some
> semantic association in the letters "lt" with the operator's actual
> function.
> 
> Twice as bad, to me, would be if we were also required to type &gt; for
> ">"
> (which people do anyway). "&lt;&lt;" is exponentially worse, IMHO.

To be accurate, it's only linearly worse.   :-)

Maybe there should also be a standardized entity defined for "<<" to 
econimize on the ampersands and semicolons.

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list