On 8/19/2010 11:38 AM, Hermann Stamm-Wilbrandt wrote:
> | why do  you say > must not be escaped? it is safer to escape it 9and
>
> I just read the spec and '>' is not a must-escape character.
> I agree with you that it is better to escape it and I did it in
> LtGtAmp template (xml-to-string does not escape '>').
>

I think we had a non-native-speaker miscommunication.
HSW said,

> While '<' and '&' must be escaped, '>' must not.

Which DC (correctly as a native English speaker) interpreted to mean a
*prohibition* on escaping '>'.
But apparently you meant

> While '<' and '&' must be escaped, '>' does not have to be.

indicating a *lack of obligation*.

Apologies for the non-intuitive semantics of "must not" vs. "doesn't
have to" in English.
http://www.english-the-international-language.com/rules.html

Lars