Message196488
| Author |
maker |
| Recipients |
christian.heimes, eli.bendersky, maker, mmokrejs, r.david.murray, scoder, serhiy.storchaka |
| Date |
2013年08月29日.20:31:03 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1377808263.99.0.458832930439.issue18850@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> Is that you actual use case? That you *want* to store binary data in XML, instead of getting it properly rejected as non well-formed content?
No, Stefan.
What I was saying in my last message was just "you're right, the user shall always use repr() when printing an xml tree" (msg196313) because "xml does *not* guarantee to have only printable chars by itself" (msg196368, msg196379).
As an advice I hope you do not take as insult, saying
"in section {section} the spec says {argument}"
is much more constructive than
"read the spec on that", "{extremely_obvious_link}",
at least to people not familiar with the spec and asking for the source of your arguments (msg196360). Can shorten threads, too. |
|