Okay, should be there with r21309...let me know!
Ralph
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Greg Watson wrote:
> Close, but no banana!
> Can you add a semicolon to the end of each? So "<" should be replaced by
> "<", etc.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg
>
> On May 26, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>
Close, but no banana!
Can you add a semicolon to the end of each? So "<" should be replaced
by "<", etc.
Thanks,
Greg
On May 26, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
Guess I had just never seen that format before - thanks for
clarifying!
I committed the revisions to the trunk in r212
Guess I had just never seen that format before - thanks for clarifying!
I committed the revisions to the trunk in r21285 - see what you think...
Ralph
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Greg Watson wrote:
> Ralph,
> Both my proposals are correct XML and should be parsable by any conforming
> XML
Ralph,
Both my proposals are correct XML and should be parsable by any
conforming XML parser. Just changing the tags will not work because
any text that contains "&", "<", or ">" will still confuse an XML
parser.
Regards,
Greg
On May 26, 2009, at 8:25 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
Yo Greg
Yo Greg
I'm slow, but it did hit me that there may be a simpler solution after all.
I gather that the problem is that the user's output could have tags in it
that match our own, thus causing tag-confusion. True?
My concern is that our proposed solution generates pidgin-xml which could
only ever b
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Greg Watson wrote:
> Ralph,
>
> In life, nothing is ever easy...
:-)
>
>
> While the XML output is working well, I've come across an issue with
> stdout/stderr. Unfortunately it's not just enough to wrap it in tags,
> because it's possible that the output will
